ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Youth Unemployment

Ann McKechin: What her policy is on tackling youth unemployment in Northern Ireland.

Michael Penning: Specific measures to tackle youth unemployment in Northern Ireland are the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Executive. The Government’s efforts to reduce the largest structural deficit in our peacetime history and set the country back on the path of sustainable economic recovery will attract growth and help young people throughout the United Kingdom.

Ann McKechin: Given that almost one in five young people in Northern Ireland are currently unemployed, is it not time for the Minister to consider a national insurance break for small employers, which are predominant in the private economy in Northern Ireland, to allow them to take on young people and get them back to work?

Michael Penning: There will be a statement, believe it or not, later in the day in which the Chancellor sets out our economic measures—the autumn statement. I know that the hon. Lady speaks in good faith and cares about this problem, but it is not something that suddenly happened when the coalition Government came into power, or when the Northern Ireland Executive came into power; youth unemployment started to rise quite quickly in 2004 when her Government were in power, and that was in a time of boom before it went bust under the last Administration.

Margaret Ritchie: Will the Minister say what discussions have taken place with Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive, apart from the talks about corporation tax, about greater devolution of economic levers to give the Northern Ireland Executive greater authority in dealing with youth unemployment, which currently stands at one in 20 of the population?

Michael Penning: I meet Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive regularly to talk about a range of issues. They have not requested the devolution of specific powers in this area, but if they do, we will listen to them.

Gregory Campbell: Youth unemployment is an escalating problem in Northern Ireland. Last week, I hosted an event with Invest Northern Ireland to give young people the skills that they need to get into employment. Does the Minister agree that young people who are unemployed and marginalised, particularly those in areas of deprivation, can fall prey to unacceptable activity? Will he join me in condemning the major and reprehensible decisions of two councils in Northern Ireland last week—Newry and Mourne, and Belfast—that could worsen the situation and send us down into a cycle of unemployment and deprivation, rather than lift us out of it?

Michael Penning: As you can imagine, Mr Speaker, I will not be drawn into comments on individual decisions taken by local authorities in Northern Ireland. However, it is not all bad news. There are in excess of 11,000 youngsters in apprenticeships in Northern Ireland on more than 100 apprenticeship schemes. That is good news for them and we should not denigrate the good work that they are doing.

Vernon Coaker: First, will the Minister join me in condemning the violence in Belfast on Monday evening, which was wrong, unacceptable and without justification?
	Does the Minister agree that young people will be the force behind further progress in Northern Ireland? What specific measures have he and the Northern Ireland Office asked the Chancellor to include in the autumn statement to tackle youth unemployment in Northern Ireland?

Michael Penning: The shadow Secretary of State is trying to draw me into territory that is way above my pay grade. Like the rest of the House and the country, I will wait to hear the autumn statement.
	I join the shadow Secretary of State and shadow Minister in saying that what happened the other night was fundamentally wrong. Police and security officers were assaulted and battered while just doing their job. People may not have liked what was said and done in the council chamber, but it was done in a democratic way.

Vernon Coaker: From what the Minister has said, it appears that the Northern Ireland Office has asked the Chancellor to include absolutely nothing in the autumn statement to tackle youth unemployment in Northern Ireland. The Minister and the Secretary of State have to realise that the Government have a duty to young people in Northern Ireland that must be met. More than one in five young people in Northern Ireland are out of work. Westminster has a responsibility to act. There has been no action from the Government to date; are we to get nothing in the autumn statement later today? When will the Minister and the Government get a grip, not only on the economy in the rest of the UK, but on youth unemployment in Northern Ireland?

Michael Penning: The hon. Gentleman, who is a friend of mine, needs to get a grip on his comments and wait for the autumn statement. He will then find out whether we have done nothing or something. The autumn statement will clearly show what we have asked for and how much success we have had. Wait and see.

Inward Investment

Fiona Bruce: What recent discussions she has had with the Northern Ireland Executive on attracting inward investment.

Theresa Villiers: Responsibility for inward investment is largely a devolved matter, but the Government have assured Executive Ministers that we will work closely with them and make every effort to help rebalance the Northern Ireland economy and secure inward investment.

Fiona Bruce: The “Lonely Planet” guide has rated Londonderry-Derry the fourth best city in the world to visit in 2013—the only UK destination in its top 10. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this could help boost tourism and investment in Northern Ireland and support the Londonderry-Derry 2013 UK city of culture programme?

Theresa Villiers: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. Derry-Londonderry will have a great year next year, with its UK city of culture designation enabling it to project on the world stage what a brilliant city it is. It is also hosting the Fleadh. Such events demonstrate that Northern Ireland is forward-looking, and a great place in which to invest. I was in Derry-Londonderry last week and I was particularly interested in the plans for Digital Derry and the boost that the chamber of commerce wants to give the local economy.

William McCrea: One of the main tools used to attract business into the United Kingdom is regional aid. On future regional aid guidelines, will the Secretary of State support our efforts to have all of Northern Ireland eligible for regional aid, just as we support the UK Government’s efforts to allow support to continue for larger companies?

Theresa Villiers: I believe that it is important that Northern Ireland continues to be able to offer regional aid, given the history of its economy. I have met Arlene Foster to discuss how I can help the Northern Ireland Executive’s efforts to persuade the Commission, when it makes decisions on assisted area status, that the interests of Northern Ireland and its economy should be properly defended.

Laurence Robertson: Has the Secretary of State had a chance to look at the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee report, published last week, which identified air passenger duty as a stumbling block on the road to economic recovery in Northern Ireland? Will she consider accepting our central recommendation and discussing with the Treasury and the Northern Ireland Assembly the prospects of reducing air passenger duty on flights to and from Northern Ireland from Great Britain, or, preferably, removing that tax altogether?

Theresa Villiers: My hon. Friend’s report is strong and he is right to consider the importance of transport links. The Government moved swiftly when the Northern Ireland Executive requested devolution of long-haul air passenger duty. The possibility of reducing short-haul air passenger duty in future is made difficult, of course,
	by the record deficit that we inherited from Labour. However, the Chancellor is very much aware of the concerns about air passenger duty, and I have discussed the matter with Treasury Ministers on several occasions.

Mark Durkan: Coming back to the wonderful city of Derry or Londonderry, one of the best examples of inward investment is the Invista, formerly DuPont, plant in my constituency. It won that investment to be the only lycra-producing plant in Europe in worldwide internal competition within the company. Its ability to win future such investment could be compromised by proposed changes in the EU’s REACH—registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemical substances—legislation. Will the Secretary of State use her position to influence her ministerial colleagues here to ensure that, at the Member State Committee meeting next week, the UK resists those changes?

Theresa Villiers: I am happy to work with ministerial colleagues to ensure that we get the right outcome on REACH. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. Although the underlying purpose of that directive—to ensure that chemicals are handled safely—is laudable, it would be counter-productive if it destroyed jobs and enterprise and simply exported them outside the European Union. I will therefore press my colleagues to ensure that we get a sensible outcome, which will not have the damaging impact that the hon. Gentleman fears, on REACH.

Lady Hermon: This is an unusual request, but I shall make it anyway. As part of the inward investment power of the G8 summit in Fermanagh next June, will the Secretary of State kindly meet my constituent, Mr Peter Meanley, who is a very distinguished craftsman and wishes to make beautifully glazed Toby jug replicas of all eight Heads of Government and State? It is an usual request, but will the Secretary of State please my constituent and the North Down MP by granting it?

Theresa Villiers: I would be happy to meet the hon. Lady’s constituent. It sounds as though he has an excellent project. Over the coming months, the Government will work hard to ensure that Northern Ireland gets the maximum possible benefits from the G8, which is an opportunity to showcase Fermanagh and the whole of Northern Ireland as a brilliant place to visit as a tourist and a brilliant place in which to invest.

Security Situation

Gareth Johnson: What recent assessment she has made of the security situation in Northern Ireland; and if she will make a statement.

David Rutley: What recent assessment she has made of the security situation in Northern Ireland; and if she will make a statement.

Mel Stride: What recent assessment she has made of the security situation in Northern Ireland; and if she will make a statement.

Theresa Villiers: The Government are committed to doing all we can to keep people in Northern Ireland safe. The threat level in Northern Ireland remains severe but the Police Service of Northern Ireland and its partners are working with dedication and determination in their efforts to frustrate the attacks planned by terrorists.

Gareth Johnson: Northern Ireland is as much a part of the United Kingdom as Dartford, so does the Secretary of State share my deep disappointment that the Union flag will not fly continuously over Belfast city hall, and does she agree with the principle that no law should prevent the Union flag from flying anywhere in the United Kingdom?

Theresa Villiers: I fully appreciate the strength of feeling on the flying of flags, but nothing could possibly justify the scenes of disorder witnessed outside city hall in Belfast earlier this week. Yes, there are serious and significant sensitivities about flag flying, but these decisions must be taken on the basis of sound, reasoned discussions and democratic votes, and not as a result of mobs seeking to beat down the door of city hall.

David Rutley: Given the upcoming G8 summit at the Loch Erne hotel near Enniskillen, which will be important for the whole country and not just Northern Ireland, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that security plans are being drawn up to ensure that the summit is the success it truly deserves to be?

Theresa Villiers: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. Planning is already very much under way. The Government are committed to working closely with the PSNI and its partners to ensure that the policing and security operations around the G8 are a success.

Mel Stride: As we have heard, Londonderry will be the city of culture next year. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the divisional commander of the PSNI, Mr Stephen Martin, on the exemplary way in which he and his officers have countered the terrorist threat locally so that we can look forward to a full cultural programme next year in that city?

Theresa Villiers: I certainly join my hon. Friend in that. I met PSNI officers from Derry-Londonderry just a week or so ago. They do an incredibly good job in very difficult circumstances with great bravery and dedication. They are determined to continue community policing close to the community. They will not compromise on that, but delivering it in the face of a continuing terrorist threat, and continuing attempts to target and attack officers, is extremely difficult. I am only too happy to join him in congratulating the police in Derry-Londonderry on the job they do.

Nigel Dodds: The Secretary of State will agree that there can be absolutely no justification at any time for attacks on police officers or anyone, or for threats to elected representatives. Those of us who have been the subject of threats, assassination attempts and bombs in our constituency offices and homes know that very well indeed—and we have no time for it whatever. Further to a previous question, does the Secretary of State agree that naming a playground
	after an IRA gunman, as Newry and Mourne district council did the other day, and tearing down the national flag at civic buildings in Belfast, do nothing for community relations and are deeply destabilising?

Theresa Villiers: As I have said, the flying of flags outside city hall is a matter for Belfast city council to decide. It is important that it is allowed to make that decision free from any kind of intimidation, including riots outside. I entirely join the right hon. Gentleman in condemning any attempts made to intimidate elected representatives or politicians from whichever party.
	As to the decisions local authorities make on naming playgrounds, I do not think it would be sensible or wise for me to interfere in that discussion. We need to move towards a genuinely shared future in Northern Ireland, where such sensitive decisions can be taken on the basis of reason and mutual respect for the points of view of different parts of the community.

Nigel Dodds: I welcomed recently the Secretary of State’s statement that she was not neutral on the Union. People in Northern Ireland will be disappointed that she cannot bring herself to condemn a decision to name a playground after an IRA gunman. A clear message needs to be sent out by the Secretary of State and the House that such behaviour and gestures are deeply destabilising and very damaging to community relations, especially with respect to those parents who will now not take their children to a playground where they feel intimidated.

Theresa Villiers: I entirely respect the right hon. Gentleman’s point of view, but I also totally respect the devolution settlement, whereby a whole range of decisions are now made locally in Northern Ireland. It is not for the Secretary of State to seek to interfere in those decisions, and I have no intention of doing so.

Paul Goggins: Once again this year disputed parades have led to community tension and serious disorder. Has the Secretary of State recently held discussions with the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister about plans to devolve the legal framework for parading in line with the agreement that they reached at Hillsborough castle in 2010?

Theresa Villiers: Parading has been one of the issues I have discussed with the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and other politicians in Northern Ireland. As the right hon. Gentleman points out, it was discussed as part of the devolution settlement. The Government remain entirely open to a devolved solution on parading, if the political parties in Northern Ireland can build a consensus to deliver it.

Afghanistan (Armed Forces Families)

David Simpson: What practical support she can give to the families from Northern Ireland of those (a) serving in and (b) who have returned from Afghanistan.

Michael Penning: I pay tribute to our brave armed forces who have served with such distinction in Afghanistan and other parts of the world. The MOD Service Personnel
	and Veterans Agency and many other service charities provide support and services to our 900,000-strong armed forces community and to their families.

David Simpson: I thank the Minister for his comments. Will he agree to meet a group of families in my constituency who have loved ones serving in Afghanistan, so that they can raise some of the practical issues themselves?

Michael Penning: It will be a pleasure and an honour to meet the families in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. We are working very closely with the brigadier and his staff at 38 (Irish) Brigade to ensure that concerns are addressed.

Stephen Pound: Members on both sides of the House welcome the community covenant, which is a long-overdue recognition of the heroic sacrifice of our armed forces. Have the Secretary of State or the Minister given thought to naming an individual contact point for returning veterans—perhaps a community covenant champion, bearing it in mind that the Minister of State already has rather a busy job?

Michael Penning: I thank the hon. Gentleman, and my friend, for his comments. I have a very busy and a very important job, but correctly looking after those who have served their country, which the military covenant was designed to do, is exactly what I intend to do. I sit on the Prime Minister’s military covenant committee. When I was asked that question in the military covenant debate, I committed to having a round-table discussion on how we better help our servicemen and women when they leave the armed forces in Northern Ireland.

Mr Speaker: I have known the Minister of State for 20 years, and I have never regarded him as softly spoken. May I exhort him to speak up a bit?

Transferable Allowance (Married Couples)

Jim Shannon: What discussions she has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the likely positive effects on families in Northern Ireland of introducing a transferable allowance for married couples.

Michael Penning: rose—

Hon. Members: Come on!

Michael Penning: Well then, Mr Speaker! We are committed to finding ways, which were in the manifesto—[ Interruption. ] You’ve got me going now, Mr Speaker. Treasury Ministers have undertaken to consider a range of options, some of which we might hear later, and make proposals to support marriage.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for his response. My party and that of the Minister of State support a transferrable tax allowance. Marriage in Northern Ireland has risen by 15% since 2001, which reinforces its importance and relevance in today’s society. Does the Minister agree that that must be reflected in the introduction of a transferable tax allowance to allow family units to obtain the benefit, rather than be penalised?

Michael Penning: There are many ways in which we can support marriage within a tax allowance, and my hon. Friend will have to wait a little longer to hear exactly what is in the autumn statement—you never know, but we will wait and see.

Security (Cross-border Co-operation)

Jack Lopresti: What recent assessment she has made of the level of cross-border security co-operation between the Police Service of Northern Ireland and An Garda Siochana; and if she will make a statement.

Theresa Villiers: Co-operation between the PSNI and An Garda Siochana has never been stronger. It has made a real difference in tackling terrorism and other forms of criminal activity. I have no doubt that it has saved lives.

Jack Lopresti: I thank my right hon. Friend for her answer. Will she assure the House that co-operation between the PSNI and the Garda covers not only terrorism, but other activities, such as organised crime, that help to finance terrorism? With that in mind, will she tell us what recent discussions she has had with counterparts in Dublin as part of our joint efforts to combat terrorism?

Theresa Villiers: I have had discussions with the Irish Justice Minister, Alan Shatter, the Garda Commissioner, Martin Callinan, and the Taoiseach about the importance of cross-border co-operation. As I said in my opening answer, that co-operation has never been stronger, and we are always open to options for deepening that co-operation in our joint fight against terrorism and criminality.

Ian Paisley Jnr: After congratulating my right hon. the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) on reaching his 50th birthday, will the Secretary of State tell us when she intends next to meet representatives from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to discuss how they will tackle fuel and cigarette smuggling on a cross-party basis? It is depriving her Government of billions of pounds in lost tax revenue.

Theresa Villiers: I am happy to join the hon. Gentleman in wishing the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) a happy birthday. I have met Treasury Ministers on many occasions, and my colleague, the Minister of State, has recently met representatives from HMRC and will be meeting them again soon. I am happy to do that as well. The Government are strongly committed to cracking down on tax evasion in all forms. We have devoted £917 million, and—who knows?—further announcements on cracking down on tax evasion might be made later this afternoon.

De Silva Report

Valerie Vaz: What representations she has received from the Finucane family in advance of the scheduled publication of the de Silva report on 12 December 2012.

Theresa Villiers: I have not received any representations from the Finucane family since taking office, but my officials are in touch with the family’s legal advisers on the arrangements for publication of the de Silva review next week.

Valerie Vaz: I thank the Secretary of State for her answer. It seems that we take a long time to bring justice to grieving families, and I am surprised that the Government have been involved in checking the de Silva report. How does she intend to bring justice for the death of Pat Finucane, given that the family have not been involved in the review?

Theresa Villiers: I strongly believe that the de Silva review will reveal the truth. It has been a very serious exercise. One reason the Prime Minister and my predecessor chose the review process, as opposed to a public inquiry, was the experience of public inquiries taking many years. It would not have been right to wait that long or for the family to have to wait another 12 years to get to the truth. The truth is what counts, and I am sure that the de Silva review will reveal it next week.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: I thank the Secretary of State for her premature, but nevertheless welcome, birthday wishes.
	The Secretary of State takes a great interest in the Finucane case, but will she cast her mind to the families of the 10 people murdered at Kingsmill in south Armagh, and will she note that one of the guns was found in possession of Raymond McCreesh, after whom a play park in Newry has now been named—shamefully—by the Social Democratic and Labour party and others? Will she cast her mind to those innocent victims who today are hurt by the decisions of Newry and Mourne district council, which frankly are a disgrace?

Theresa Villiers: It is important, both today in the House and next week when the de Silva review is published, to remember all the victims of the troubles. There were far too many despicable murders and tragedies, and the focus on individual cases should not blind us to the gravity of the suffering imposed on so many people across so many years. We will be emphasising that next week when we look at the Finucane case. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we are discussing extremely serious matters of life and death, and it would be appreciated if the House would respond accordingly.

Alasdair McDonnell: Does the Secretary of State agree that the Finucane case is not just about truth but about justice, and that there is a need to follow through and obtain justice, as much as truth, for the Finucane family?

Theresa Villiers: Of course, the review is about finding the truth and obtaining justice, but whether prosecutions follow will, of course, be a matter for the prosecution authorities, not the Government. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. Let us have some order for Mr Bob Stewart.

Dissident Republican Groups

Bob Stewart: What recent assessment she has made of the activities of dissident republican groups.

Theresa Villiers: Attack planning by these terrorist groupings continues. The level of threat in Northern Ireland remains at severe. These groups possess lethal intent and we remain vigilant. The Police Service of Northern Ireland and its partners are working strategically to tackle the threat, to keep the people of Northern Ireland safe and secure.

Bob Stewart: In view of the continuing activities of the IRA under a new guise—the “new IRA”, and indeed the Continuity IRA—can my right hon. Friend assure me that she has done as much as humanly possible to identify long-term hides of weapons?

Theresa Villiers: The PSNI and its partners, including the Garda Siochana, are focused on suppressing terrorist activity. They are absolutely determined to keep people in Northern Ireland safe and secure. That means combating the efforts the terrorists are making to access weaponry, whether by seeking to import them, steal them or access hides from the past. This is an important priority for the PSNI, and it has the full support of Her Majesty’s Government in the brilliant work it does on these matters.

Naomi Long: Dissident groups have been responsible for bomb attacks on my party headquarters and party members. I thank the Secretary of State for the attention she gives to that issue. However, the most recent attacks on my party colleagues and our party offices—our constituency offices and our staff—with threats and intimidation, have come from loyalist sources. Will she confirm that all threats of politically motivated violence will be treated with the same vigour as dissident republican attacks?

Theresa Villiers: I was discussing this matter with David Ford, the Minister of Justice, this morning. It is unacceptable if elected representatives or their staff are intimidated in any way. I know that the Minister of Justice and the PSNI will continue to defend robustly the ability of politicians in Northern Ireland to carry out their duties without intimidation.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Al-Qaeda

Julian Lewis: What his strategy is to deal with any re-emergence of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan after 2014.

David Cameron: Before I answer my hon. Friend’s question, I am sure the whole House would wish to join me in congratulating the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge on the wonderful news that they are expecting their first child. This is the perfect piece of news to end what has been an extraordinary jubilee year.
	Turning to my hon. Friend’s question on Afghanistan, the threat to global security from the al-Qaeda presence in Afghanistan has been significantly reduced. This is in large part the result of the brave work of UK, international security assistance force and Afghan armed forces. We remain committed to Afghanistan for the long term, and we will continue to support the development of the Afghan national security forces after 2014 through continued funding and involvement in training. Our continued contribution to aid and the political process, combined with our armed forces’ efforts, underpin a state that is capable of policing its own lands. It is by this path that al-Qaeda will, I believe, be unable to re-establish itself in Afghanistan.

Julian Lewis: The Taliban have been told when most of our troops will be leaving, and they need to be told what sanctions to expect if they help al-Qaeda to return. What would those sanctions be and would an allied regional strategic base serve to make them credible?

David Cameron: The most important sanction for everyone to bear in mind is the fact that the Afghan national security forces are already at a level of 335,000 and are increasingly capable and increasingly able to police and secure their own country, but of course we will continue to be involved, not least through the officer training academy we will establish. The Americans will have a strong relationship—as we will have a strong relationship—with the Government of Afghanistan, and we will obviously want to help them in all the ways we can to ensure that Afghanistan never again becomes a haven of international terror.

Engagements

Seema Malhotra: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 5 December.

David Cameron: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to duties in my house—[ Interruption ]—I am sorry, in this House. [ Laughter. ] You would have thought I’d got used to it by now. In addition to my duties in this House I shall have further meetings later today.

Seema Malhotra: I visited my critically ill constituent Mrs Swaran Kaur Mudhar in hospital last week. There were only two nurses on a ward of 30 very ill patients. She has asked me to ask the Prime Minister why he has cut the number of nurses.

David Cameron: The number of clinical staff in our NHS since this Government came to power has gone up, and the number of managers is significantly down, but as my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary has said, we are not the slightest bit complacent. There are parts of our NHS where standards of care and standards of nursing are not acceptable. That is why we are introducing things like the friends and family test to ensure that all hospitals come up to the highest standards of the best.

Angie Bray: Following the publication of the Leveson report last week, does my right hon. Friend agree that what we need is a strong, independent regulator, preferably without statutory underpinning?

David Cameron: I think this is a moment when we should try to maximise the amount of consensus in this House and in the country about what is required. Everyone agrees that we need strong, independent regulation along the lines that Leveson suggests. Everyone agrees that we need million-pound fines. Everyone agrees that we need prominent apologies and independently handled complaints. This is absolutely vital, and I have been encouraged by the meetings I have had with the editors of national newspapers that they will put in place that Leveson-compliant regulation. We should continue the cross-party talks and make sure that we can deliver a regulatory system of which this House, this country and, above all, the victims can be proud.

Edward Miliband: Let me join the Prime Minister in congratulating the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge on their very happy news. They have the best wishes not just of this House but of the whole country.
	The Conservative party manifesto, published in April 2010, said that
	“we will increase health spending in real terms every year.”
	However, the head of the UK Statistics Authority says clearly and unequivocally that this has not happened. So what is today’s excuse?

David Cameron: This Government are putting £12.6 billion extra into the NHS. Let me quote the right hon. Gentleman the figures directly from the head of the Office for National Statistics. In real terms, spending in 2010 was £104.2 billion. In 2011, it was £104.3 billion in real terms. That is a real-terms increase, and I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that there will be further real-terms increases in 2012, in 2013 and in 2014, whereas there would be cuts under Labour.

Edward Miliband: Let me just say to the Prime Minister that, even by his standards, that was the most slippery answer we could possibly imagine. He is unbelievable. He has come to this House 26 times since he became Prime Minister and boasted about how he is increasing health spending every year of this Parliament—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Government Members are cheering, but he has failed to meet that promise. This is not an argument between me and him; we have a ruling from the chair of the independent UK Statistics Authority who says that that has not happened. I would be grateful if the Department of Health could clarify the statements made. Instead of his usual bluster, why does he not just correct the record?

David Cameron: It is a very simple point. The spending figures for 2010 were set by the last Labour Government. Those are the figures we inherited. All the right hon. Gentleman is doing is proving that his Government were planning for an NHS cut. We have taken that figure in 2010, we have increased it in 2011 and we will increase it again in every year of this Parliament. People do not have to look at manifestos for a contrast; they can look at what Labour is doing in Wales. The Labour party is in charge in Wales, and it has cut the NHS in Wales by 8%. As a result, waiting times are up, waiting lists are down, quality is down. That is what you get with Labour and the NHS.

Edward Miliband: The Prime Minister knows the reality, which is that he made a promise about every—

David Cameron: indicated  dissent .

Edward Miliband: There is no point in him shaking his head and getting annoyed. He made a promise that he would keep the NHS budget rising in real terms in every year of this Parliament. Labour’s plan, which we set out at the election, was to increase the health budget in 2010-11, and he cut the budget. He knows the reality. Let me give him one more opportunity. He made a solemn promise to the British people of year-on-year increases in the health budget, including in 2010-11. He failed to meet the promise. Come on, why don’t you just admit it?

David Cameron: I do not know whether I need to remind the right hon. Gentleman that the general election was after the 2010 year had begun. This was Labour’s plan, and what we have done is increase the budget every year. If he does not believe that, perhaps he will listen to the Labour shadow Health Secretary, who gave an interview in the New Statesman, when he said, about the Tories:
	“They’re not ring-fencing it. They’re increasing it.”
	He went on:
	“Cameron’s been saying it every week in the Commons: ‘Oh, the shadow health secretary wants to spend less on health than us.’”
	The question was asked:
	“Which is true, isn’t it?”
	He said:
	“Yes, it is true…that’s my point.”
	There we have it, confirmed: it is official—Labour wants to cut our NHS. It would never be safe with them again.

Edward Miliband: No, the reality is that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) left a rising health budget and this Prime Minister cut it—that is the reality.
	Now, let me try the Prime Minister on another fact, which I am sure he will be able to give to the House. Can he tell us how big an income tax cut he is giving next April to people earning over £1 million a year as a result of the reduction in the top rate of tax?

David Cameron: I am not surprised the right hon. Gentleman wants to get off health. That was the biggest own goal I think I have ever seen.
	On the issue of the top rate of tax, when the right hon. Gentleman’s Government put it up to 50p, what it actually meant was that many fewer millionaires paid it, as a result of which the tax take suffered by £7 billion. I remind him that under this Government the top rate of tax will be higher in every year than any year when he was working in the Treasury.

Edward Miliband: I will give the right hon. Gentleman the answer, because of course he did not give it to us. Next April, everyone earning over £1 million will have a tax cut of £107,000 a year—£107,000 a year! [Interruption.] It is no good the Deputy Prime Minister shouting from a sedentary position: he went along with it—the party of Lloyd George!
	The Prime Minister has not kept his promise on us all being in it together. Let us ask him about his central promise. Two years ago, he said that by 2015
	“we will have balanced the books.”
	Can he explain why he is so badly failing to keep that promise?

David Cameron: First, let me give the right hon. Gentleman the figures on the top rate of tax because it is important. In 2009-10, 16,000 people were earning more than £1 million, with a tax liability of £13 billion. In 2010-11, when the rate went up, this plummeted to 6,000 people with a tax liability of £6.5 billion. Therefore, his 50p election gambit cost the country £7 billion. When is he going to realise that setting tax rates is about raising money, not about punishing success? That is what Labour needs to understand.
	In terms of the deficit, we have cut the Budget deficit by 25%, and the right hon. Gentleman will be getting an update on progress from the Chancellor in a minute, but let me ask the right hon. Gentleman this: how on earth can you deal with a borrowing problem by pledging to borrow more?

Edward Miliband: Let us be clear about the Prime Minister’s answer on the 50p rate. His answer to the problem of tax avoidance is to give the people doing it a tax cut. That is the answer he gave—give them another big giveaway. The reality that the Prime Minister could not get away from is that the deficit is going up, not down, on his watch. We all remember the posters, with his airbrushed face, saying,
	“I’ll cut the deficit, not the NHS.”
	The facts speak for themselves: he has cut the NHS and he is not cutting the deficit.

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman is 100% wrong: we are increasing spending on the NHS and we are cutting the deficit. Yes, we have cut the deficit by 25%, there are a million more private sector jobs, businesses are starting up at a higher rate than at any time in our history, this economy is on the right track, we are equipping Britain for the global race and, unlike the Labour party, we are on the side of people who work hard and want to do the right thing. And what is the right hon. Gentleman’s answer? More borrowing, more spending, more of the things that got us into the mess in the first place.

Richard Bacon: Three years ago, the NHS spent £500 million on Tamiflu without having seen all the data on effectiveness or safety. Given that, far from that being an isolated case, it is normal for the drugs industry to have almost complete control over the evidence base on which crucial public decisions are made, will the Prime Minister ask Roche to make available the full clinical study reports on Tamiflu, so that doctors, patients and taxpayers are not misled?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend does excellent work on behalf of the taxpayer, partly through all the good questions that he asks. He has raised an important issue, involving not only the cost to the taxpayer but the possible overstatement of benefits to patients. There needs to be more transparency in clinical trials data,
	and we are committed to ensuring that that happens. The European Medicine Agency’s work in this regard is supported, and from next year there will be a legal requirement to publish summary reports from clinical trials.

Lindsay Roy: This week we learnt that, despite assurances that exhaustive checks were taking place, the UK Border Agency had made minimal attempts to trace 124,000 asylum seekers and migrants, and that 150 boxes of mail had been left unopened. Does that not demonstrate that the 20% cut in the agency’s budget has put our efforts to secure our borders at risk?

David Cameron: I think that this is a week in which to recognise that we said that we would cut immigration, and that, under this Government, net immigration is down by 25%. However, I want us to do far better in chasing up illegal overstayers and illegal migrants. Good work is being done in that respect, which also involves private sector organisations finding these people and getting them to leave. Of course we had to make reductions in the UKBA budget, as we have had to make them in all budgets, but the hon. Gentleman should have noticed by now that government these days is about getting more for less.

Caroline Dinenage: The Prime Minister will be aware that Portsmouth has been the home of the Royal Navy and a working dockyard for more than 500 years. Given that the Business Secretary appears to have prejudged the findings of a study of the future of shipbuilding, what reassurance can the Prime Minister give me—and 1,500 shipbuilders—that Portsmouth will remain integral to the building and export of warships, and will continue to be the base port for our future surface fleet?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend quite rightly speaks up for Portsmouth, which is and will continue to be an excellent home for the Royal Navy. The Navy is fully committed to Portsmouth, and, whatever decision is made on the future of shipbuilding, the Navy will remain a major employer in the city, not least once the new carriers arrive in Portsmouth in a few years’ time. I am sure that my hon. Friend will also welcome the recently announced enterprise zone on the Gosport peninsula, a £25 million package which could create up to 1,200 jobs.

Margaret Beckett: In June 2010, the Prime Minister said that despite the Government’s deficit reduction plan, he would ensure that there was
	“ no increase in child poverty.”—[Official Report, 23 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 294.]
	Does he still stand by that assurance?

David Cameron: We are doing everything that we can to tackle child poverty, and according to some estimates it has come down. What we have specifically done is increase the element of child tax credit that goes to the poorest families.

Paul Burstow: In the wake of the criminal convictions of staff who repeatedly abused people living at Winterbourne View hospital, is
	it not time that those who take the fees, employ the staff and then supervise those staff were themselves held to account through the creation of a new offence of corporate neglect?

David Cameron: I have listened very carefully to what my right hon. Friend has said. There have indeed been some appalling instances of completely unacceptable levels of care. Of course people working in such organisations are fully subject to the law, as they should be, and if the law has been broken, the proper consequences should follow.

Jim Shannon: One of the main industrial issues in my constituency, and indeed throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, is the price of electricity. What action is the Prime Minister taking to mitigate spiralling costs, especially in Northern Ireland?

David Cameron: For consumers, we have announced our plan to ensure that companies put people on the lowest available tariff, which I think has been warmly welcomed throughout the House and throughout the country. For business, given that there is an issue with the energy-intensive industries, the Government have announced their intention to exempt such industries from contract-for-difference costs under electricity market reform. That is subject to state aid clearance and further consultation, but I think it shows that the Government are working hard to help those industries and ensure that they continue to compete and succeed in Britain.

Eleanor Laing: The whole House does indeed join the Prime Minister in congratulating the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge on their excellent good news. Will the Prime Minister please confirm to the House that the Commonwealth has at last agreed—after many of us have been asking for this for years—to change the rules on royal succession? Will the Prime Minister undertake to bring a Bill before the House very soon, so that if this baby is a girl she can follow in the footsteps of her much-loved great-grandmother and become our Queen?

David Cameron: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. I think I can answer positively on all the points she made. At the Perth Commonwealth conference, I chaired a meeting of the Prime Ministers of all the different realms and we agreed we should bring forward legislation to deal with this issue. All the realms have now agreed to do that. We will introduce legislation into this House very shortly. It will write down in law what we agreed back in 2011: that if the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s first child is a girl, she can one day be our Queen. That is the key point. But it is important to explain that the changes will apply to a child born after the date of the Perth announcement of last year even if the birth is before the legislation is passed. I hope it will not take long—certainly not nine months—to pass this legislation, but, just in case, there would not be a problem.

Margaret Hodge: I welcome the Government’s commitment to increase their efforts to tackle tax avoidance. Starbucks has now caved in to public pressure and announced that it will
	review its tax arrangements in the UK, so naming and shaming clearly works. Surely it is time to stop companies engaged in tax avoidance hiding behind taxpayer confidentiality. Will the Prime Minister now commit to publishing the names of the companies found by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to have avoided paying their fair share of tax?

David Cameron: I very much welcome the right hon. Lady’s initiative on this and her Committee’s work, and I thank her for her warm words of support for what the Government have done thus far. We have recovered £29 billion of additional revenues from large businesses in the last six years, including £4 billion in the last four years from transfer pricing inquiries alone, which is one of the issues the press has covered in detail. I am certainly committed to doing everything we can to look at all the options to make sure that companies pay their taxes properly, and I agree with what the right hon. Lady said about public, and even some political, pressure. On some occasions I myself have made one or two remarks on this subject that were seen as rather controversial. It is important that people feel that companies meet their responsibilities and pay their taxes.

Robert Buckland: Will my right hon. Friend do everything he can to ensure that education, health and social services work together to commission services jointly, in order to ensure that the very welcome reforms in the forthcoming children and families Bill will be workable on the ground?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. We need to get away from the idea of Government—or, indeed, local government—operating in silos with different budgets and different Departments not working together. My hon. Friend represents a Swindon constituency, and I know that Swindon borough council has taken huge steps in bringing the various agencies together, particularly in the area of problem families, and I commend them for the work they do.

Sheila Gilmore: Whatever announcements the Chancellor makes on pension tax relief shortly, is it not a fact that when this Government came to power, they made changes to pension tax relief that gave a tax cut of £1.6 billion to people earning more than £150,000? [Interruption.] I see that the Chancellor has to give the Prime Minister his crib sheet.

David Cameron: I am afraid the hon. Lady is wrong. We inherited a plan to raise £4 billion in taxes from the wealthiest people, and we raised that further. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor will make some further announcements in a moment.

Robert Smith: The north-east of Scotland makes a major contribution to the UK economy through the offshore oil and gas industry. Will the Prime Minister commit to maximise investment in the industry so we get the maximum number of jobs and the maximum energy security and taxation for the future of this country?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend rightly speaks up for the North sea industry and for everyone who works in it in Scotland. I have been incredibly impressed
	when I have visited Aberdeen to see the health of and the wealth generated by that industry. What we have done, on decommissioning and on new field allowances, has helped to bring some certainty, and we should keep working on that to make sure that we recover as much oil and gas from the North sea as possible and make the most of this precious national asset.

Nicholas Dakin: Some 7,000 fewer nurses, longer waits in accident and emergency, and hospitals full to bursting, according to Dr Foster—the Prime Minister is cutting the NHS while the deficit rises. Will he put that on his posters for the next general election?

David Cameron: I think the hon. Gentleman was describing the situation in Wales, where Labour has put in place an 8% cut. Let me tell him what is actually happening in the NHS in England: we have got 1,350 extra clinical staff; we have taken down the number of managers by 6,700; mixed-sex accommodation is right down; the cancer drugs fund is making sure that many more people get access to those drugs; waiting times are down; the number of people waiting a long time is down; and the number of people waiting longer than 52 weeks to start treatment is at its lowest level since records began. He should be supporting this Government for their health policy and telling his Front Benchers to stop cutting the NHS.

Bernard Jenkin: Does my right hon. Friend recall receiving a visit at No. 10 from the pupils of Market Field special school, which had been nicknamed “shed city” as there were so many demountables on its site? Does he share my delight that Essex county council has allocated £8.4 million to build a new school, and may I thank him for his support for that campaign?

David Cameron: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. I am a very big supporter of Britain’s special schools; I think they provide an absolutely vital service for parents and for children who have those special and sometimes quite acute needs. I am proud of the fact that this Government have invested in special schools and they are doing such a good job, including in his constituency.

Adrian Bailey: Following the Government’s new funding formula for universities this year, student admissions dropped by more than 50,000. Despite meeting its target, the university of Wolverhampton—my local university—suffered a cut in its core allocation and has been told that there will be another cut next year. What guarantees can the Prime Minister give that universities such as Wolverhampton’s will not suffer year-on-year reductions in student numbers as a result of this new formula?

David Cameron: The whole point is that this Government took difficult decisions to make sure we could maintain the number of people going to our universities, and the question really goes right back to the Labour party: if you don’t support a proper system of student contributions, how on earth are you going to pay for our universities? We have set out our plans, and they are actually working well. You don’t start paying
	back money until you earn £21,000, and you don’t start paying back in full until you earn £35,000. We have a method for making sure we invest in our universities; the Labour party has not got a clue.

John Glen: Naomi House children’s hospice, which serves my constituency, receives just 10% of its funding from the Department of Health, whereas adult hospices receive rather more. This is especially difficult because as private institutions hospices have to pay for all prescriptions. Will the Prime Minister look again at the reasons for the different treatment of children’s and adult hospices, and meet me and Professor Aziz to discuss the different funding levels that they attract?

David Cameron: I am very happy to discuss this issue with my hon. Friend. For many years, my family used a children’s hospice in Oxford that got absolutely no state support at all. What this Government have done is continue with the £10 million going annually to support children’s hospices, and this year we have added an extra £720,000. However, what we want to put in place, and what we are discussing with the providers of both adult and children’s hospices, is a per-patient funding system that would be for all hospices. I think that would bring a greater logic and consistency to how we support this absolutely essential part of both our health service and, I would argue, our big society.

Anas Sarwar: Is the Prime Minister aware that Amazon, a global company, turned over £3.3 billion in the UK this year, paid not a single penny in corporation tax and yet was rewarded with a £10 million grant from the Scottish National party Government in Scotland? Does that not demonstrate that both our Prime Minister and our First Minister stand up for the wrong people? When will this Government move away from punishing the poorest in society and focus on those who avoid and evade?

David Cameron: The point I would make to the hon. Gentleman is that there is common ground between us, which is that we want those large multinational companies to pay proper taxes here in the UK. We believe that you do that by having low tax rates—and we have reduced the rate of corporation tax—and ensuring that they declare their income properly. On the specific issue of transfer payments, some companies have been pursuing rather strange practices to pretend that their revenues are not delivered here in the UK to run down their tax bills. As I have said, in the past four years we have recovered £4 billion in tax revenue in that way, but the Treasury and the HMRC very much know that there is more we can do.

Therese Coffey: Residents of Suffolk Coastal were very excited when the Energy Bill was published last week, because it gives a potential green light to the building of Sizewell C nuclear power station and many jobs. Will the Prime Minister commit to continuing to invest in apprenticeships and skills training so that Suffolk people can get the jobs that will be created?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The presentation of the Energy Bill to Parliament means that we can get out there and sell to all the energy
	companies the clear and stable framework that the UK has for offshore wind, nuclear, renewables and gas. It is a very positive development and there is a huge amount of potential pent-up investment, and we need to ensure that that results in British jobs and British apprenticeships. The Government are fully committed to making that happen.

Elfyn Llwyd: The Prime Minister obviously believes that within the Leveson report there lurks something that is bonkers. Given that, how would he characterise the views of his Planning Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles)—who has just said that over the coming months and years tens of thousands of new homes will have to be built on greenfield sites?

David Cameron: Let me deal with the question about the Planning Minister first. It is absolutely clear that yes, we should build on brownfield land and try to deal with the problem of empty homes, but we need a frank conversation about the need to build more flats and houses so that we do not have the situation we currently have, whereby if people do not have help from the bank of mum and dad they are in their mid-30s before they buy their first home or flat. I do not think that is acceptable in our country, so all credit to the Planning Minister for trying to fix the problem.
	On the question of Leveson, I think there is a wide agreement about what a new regulatory system ought to look like. It is set out there in black and white in Leveson, and we need to challenge the press to introduce it. If they do not, we will obviously have to take further action.

Brooks Newmark: With more men in work than ever before, more women in work than ever before, a deficit that has been cut by 25% and interest rates at historic lows, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Opposition’s plan B—code for more debt—would jeopardise all those achievements?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is entirely right; we are making progress. Of course it is tough when there are so many economic headwinds against us, but with 1 million more private sector jobs, the deficit down by 25% and a record number of businesses starting up last year, we are on the right track. It is quite clear that plan B stands for bankruptcy—that is what Labour would give us.

Mr Speaker: Last but not least, I call Ann Clwyd.

Ann Clwyd: A universal health care system free at the point of delivery is what the overwhelming majority of the British people want and something to which I remain firmly committed. However, there are increasing complaints about nurses who fail to show care and compassion to their patients. What exactly will the Prime Minister do about that?

David Cameron: The right hon. Lady speaks for the whole House and the whole country in raising this issue. I know how painful what she witnessed in her own life and her own family must have been. I am, as she is, a massive fan of our national health service and an enormous fan of the fact that it is free at the point of
	use and that we do not produce a credit card when we go to hospital. My family has had extraordinary care from our NHS, but we do not do our NHS or our nurses any favours if we do not point out that there are some very real problems in parts of our health and care system.
	As a constituency MP, I see quite a few letters—particularly elderly people and their relatives—who are not getting the sort of care that is appropriate in hospitals. I set up a nursing care quality forum that I have attended myself to discuss these issues with nurses and nurse leaders. There is no silver bullet and no magic wand, but some simple steps, such as asking every
	hospital to carry out a friends and family test, asking the patients and the staff whether they would be happy for their family or friends to be treated in that hospital, can make a real difference. So can hourly rounding, which is not something to do with statistics but the idea that the nurse should be there by the bedside of elderly patients once an hour checking that they have had water and something to eat, that they do not have bedsores and that they are properly looked after. We should not have to dictate those things, but a proper conversation with our nurses—who are angels to a vast degree—can get the situation sorted out for all our relatives.

Autumn Statement

George Osborne: It is taking time, but the British economy is healing. After the biggest financial crash of our lifetimes, people know that we face deep-seated problems at home and abroad. At home, we live with the decade of debt and the failure to equip Britain to compete in the modern world, and we face a multitude of problems from abroad—the US fiscal cliff, the slowing growth in China, and above all the eurozone, now in recession.
	People know that there are no quick fixes to these problems but they want to know that we are making progress, and the message from today’s autumn statement is that we are making progress. It is a hard road, but we are getting there. [Interruption.] Britain is on the right track—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. I ask the Chancellor to resume his seat. Let us be clear about this. Each side should be heard with courtesy. The House knows well enough by now that I will afford a very full opportunity for questioning of the Chancellor, but the more interruption and the greater the noise, the longer the session will take, and that cannot be right. So I appeal to Members please to give the Chancellor a courteous hearing, as indeed, if it becomes necessary, I will appeal to Government Back Benchers to afford a fair hearing to the shadow Chancellor. That is how it should be.

George Osborne: Britain is on the right track and turning back now would be a disaster. We have much more to do. The deficit has fallen by a quarter in just two years, and today’s figures show that it is forecast to continue to fall. Exports of goods to the major emerging economies, which were pitifully low, have doubled since 2009. Since this coalition Government came to office, 1.2 million new jobs have been created in the private sector. In a world economy where bond investors are fleeing countries that they regard as risky, investment is flowing into UK gilts, instead of flying from them. We have to keep it that way.
	Two years ago, Britain was in the danger zone. Now we are seen as one of the safe havens, able to borrow money at lower interest rates than at any time in our history. Today’s forecast shows a £33 billion saving on the debt interest payments that it was predicted we would have to pay two years ago. That is as much as the entire defence budget. That is why in this autumn statement, we show that this coalition Government are confronting the country’s problems, instead of ducking them.
	Today we reaffirm our commitment to reducing the deficit, setting out the details of our spending plans for 2015-16 and rolling forward an outline framework into 2017-18. We show our determination to do this fairly, with further savings from bureaucracy, the benefit bills and the better-off. We go on equipping Britain to succeed in the global race by switching from current spending to capital investment in science, roads and education. We offer new support for business and enterprise, so they can create the jobs we need. In everything we do, we will show today that we are on the side of those who want to work hard and get on.
	The Office for Budget Responsibility has today produced its latest economic forecast and it is a measure of the constitutional achievement that it is taken for granted that our country’s forecast is now produced independently of the Treasury, free from the political interference of the past. I want to thank Robert Chote, his fellow members of the Budget Responsibility Committee, Steve Nickell and Graham Parker, and all their staff at the OBR for their rigorous approach.
	One of the advantages of the creation of the OBR is that we get not only independent forecasts, but an independent explanation for why the forecasts are as they are. For example, if lower growth was the result of the Government’s fiscal policy, it would say so. But it does not. It says that the economy has “performed less strongly” than expected and forecasts growth this year of minus 0.1%, but in its view
	“the weaker than expected growth can be more than accounted for by over-optimism regarding net trade”.
	The OBR had previously assumed that the eurozone would begin to recover in the second half of this year. Instead, of course, it has continued to contract, which has hit our exports to those markets and the net trade numbers. The eurozone crisis has also, it says, spilled over into “tighter credit conditions” and
	“elevated UK bank funding costs”.
	In its words, those problems will
	“constrain growth for several years to come”.
	There are also domestic problems that the OBR refers to. In the report today the contraction in 2008-2009 is now assessed to be deeper than previously thought, with GDP shrinking by a staggering 6.3%, the largest shock to our economy since the second world war. In the OBR’s view, the aftermath of that shock continues to weigh on the productivity of the UK economy, with credit rationing and impaired financial markets potentially impeding the expansion of successful firms. It says:
	“GDP growth is now expected to be lower in every year of the forecast period, as credit conditions take longer to normalise and global growth remains weaker than previously expected”.
	As a result, the OBR forecasts that the economy will grow by 1.2% next year, 2.0% in 2014, 2.3% in 2015, 2.7% in 2016 and 2.8% in 2017.
	So the economy is recovering, and it is recovering more quickly than many of our neighbours. The International Monetary Fund estimates that next year the UK will grow more strongly than either France or Germany. Our credible fiscal policy allows for supportive monetary policy and, with the Bank of England, we are directly addressing the problems of tight credit through the £70 billion funding for lending scheme. In the OBR’s view, that has reduced UK bank funding costs, lowered interest rates in the real economy and will add to the level of real GDP.
	One area where the British economy has done much better than forecast is in creating jobs. Since early 2010, the private sector has created 1.2 million new jobs—600,000 more than predicted—and youth unemployment has been falling. The OBR now expects unemployment to peak at 8.3%, instead of 8.7%. That is at a time when the unemployment rate in Spain is 26%, in France it is 11% and across the whole eurozone it is almost 12%. Employment, which is already at a record high, is set to go on rising each year of the forecast. For every one job less in the public sector, two new jobs are expected to be
	created in the private sector. Britain now has a greater proportion of its people in work than either the eurozone or the United States of America. More jobs means that the impact of the weaker than forecast GDP on the public finances has been less than some might have expected.
	There have been three developments that have each had a significant one-off impact on the public finances, and the report we are publishing today shows clearly and transparently the impact of all three. First, there is the transfer of the Royal Mail pension fund to the public sector as part of its privatisation. That produces a one-off reduction in the deficit of £28 billion this year, but it will add to the deficit in the years after.
	Secondly, the previous Government had classified Bradford & Bingley and Northern Rock Asset Management as off balance sheet. Today, they are brought on balance sheet, in line with the judgment of the Office for National Statistics. That adds around £70 billion to our national debt and reminds us of the price the country is still paying for the failures of the past.
	Thirdly, the Government have decided, with the agreement of the Bank of England, to transfer excess cash held in the asset purchase facility to the Exchequer. This is sensible cash management, and it is in line with the approach of the Bank of Japan and the US Federal Reserve. I welcome the OBR’s verdict that this is, in its words, “more transparent” than the previous approach. I want to make sure that its impact on the figures is also completely transparent, so we have today published the forecasts for the public finances with and without the impact of the APF decision.
	When we came to office, the deficit stood at 11.2%—the highest in our peacetime history. It was forecast to be the largest of any major economy in the world. In the past two years, the deficit has fallen by a quarter. Today’s figures show that with or without the APF coupons, the deficit is forecast to fall this year as well, and cash borrowing is forecast to fall too. Last year, the deficit was 7.9%. This year, with the APF coupons, it is forecast to be 6.9%, but that excludes the impact of the Royal Mail pension assets. It is falling and it will continue to fall each and every year, to 6.1% next year, 5.2% the year after, 4.2% in 2015-16, then 2.6%, before reaching 1.6% in 2017-18.
	In 2009-10, the country was borrowing £159 billion. This year, we are borrowing £108 billion. That is forecast to fall to £99 billion next year, £88 billion the year after, then £73 billion in 2015-16, and £49 billion and £31 billion in the two years after that. These are the central forecasts published by the OBR, with the asset purchase facility cash transfer included. When the transfer is excluded, as we show in the document, the deficit also falls, from 7.9% last year to 7.7% this year, then 6.9% next year, and it falls in every single year after that—and cash borrowing falls in every year as well.
	There are those who have been saying that the deficit was going up this year—indeed, I think I heard it in Prime Minister’s questions—but any way you present these figures, this is not what the OBR forecasts show today. It says that the deficit is coming down—coming down this year and every year of this Parliament. Yes, the deficit is still far too high for comfort—we cannot relax our efforts to make our economy safe—but Britain is heading in the right direction. The road is hard but we are making progress.
	Unlike the previous Government’s golden rule, the regime we have set up means that the Chancellor is no longer judge and jury of their own fiscal rules, and today the OBR has assessed us against those rules. First, the fiscal mandate: this is the commitment that we will balance the cyclically adjusted current budget over the coming five years. I can tell the House that the OBR has assessed that we are, in its words, “on course” to meet our fiscal mandate. In other words, we have a better than 50% chance of eliminating the structural current deficit in five years’ time—that part of our borrowing that does not recover automatically as the economy grows. This is true, again, with or without the transfer of the coupons, so we will meet our fiscal mandate. But the OBR assesses in its central forecast that we do not meet the supplementary objective that aims to have debt falling by 2015-16. The point at which debt starts to fall has been delayed by one year, to 2016-17, and the OBR’s central forecast is that net debt will be 74.7% this year, then 76.8% next year, 79% in 2014-15, and 79.9% in 2015-16, before falling to 79.2% in 2016-17 and 77.3% in 2017-18.
	In short, the tougher economic conditions mean that while our deficit is forecast to go on falling, instead of taking three years to get our debt falling, it is going to take four. Confronted with this news, some say we should abandon our deficit plan and try to borrow more. They think that by borrowing more, we can borrow less. That would risk higher interest rates, more debt interest payments, and a complete loss of Britain’s fiscal credibility. We are not taking that road to ruin.
	Then there are those who say that despite all that has happened in the world this year, we should cut even more now to hit the debt target. That would require £17 billion of extra cuts a year. Let me explain why I have decided not to take this course.
	We have always argued that we should let the automatic stabilisers work. We have not argued that we should chase down a cyclical or temporary deterioration in the economy, particularly one that our own independent body says is largely driven by problems abroad. That is also the judgment of the International Monetary Fund, the OECD and the Governor of the Bank of England.
	Our aim is to reduce the structural deficit—the permanent hole in our public finances that will not be repaired as the economy recovers. And we are—we have cut the structural deficit by 3 percentage points in the past two years, more than any other G7 country, and it is set to go on being cut at a similar rate in the years ahead. This lower deficit is delivered by our public spending plans and we are going to stick with those plans. Overall, we are not going faster or slower with those plans; the measures I will announce in this autumn statement are fiscally neutral across this Parliament. There is no net rise in taxes today—any taxes increased are offset by taxes cut.
	In last year’s autumn statement, we committed the Government to maintain the same pace of consolidation for two further years beyond the end of the current spending review, into 2015 and 2016-17. In this year’s autumn statement, we extend the consolidation for one further year, into 2017-18. The OBR projects that, as a result, the share of national income spent by the state will fall from almost 48% of GDP in 2009-10 to 39.5% by 2017-18. The document shows that total managed expenditure will continue to fall, and will now be £4.6 billion
	lower in 2017-18 than if it had been held flat in real terms. No decision to cut spending is ever easy, but those who object must explain whether instead they would have higher taxes, higher borrowing or both.
	I also provide further detail of the consolidation plans for 2015-16, the last year of this Parliament. I said two years ago that the correct balance for our fiscal consolidation between spending and tax should be 80:20. I can confirm that by the end of 2015-16, the decisions we announce today mean that we will almost exactly deliver on that 80:20 mix. Total spending will fall in the final year of this Parliament at the same rate as through the current spending review.
	I can confirm today that the overall envelope for total managed expenditure will be set at £745 billion. We start with the working assumption that departmental resource totals will continue on the same trajectory as over the current spending review. The detail of departmental spending plans for 2015-16 will be set at a spending review, which will be announced during the first half of next year. What we are doing today is taking steps now to help deliver those spending plans and to go on reducing the deficit in a way that is fair.
	This Government have shown that it is possible to restore sanity to the public finances while improving the quality of our public services—crime has fallen, hospital waiting lists are down, school standards are up—and this is with a civil service that is today smaller than at any time since the second world war.
	We are today publishing the reports we commissioned from the pay review bodies on market-facing pay. We commit to implementing these reports. This means continuing with national pay arrangements in the NHS and Prison Service, and we will not make changes to the civil service arrangements, either; but the School Teachers Review Body recommends much greater freedom to individual schools to set pay in line with performance, and my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary will set out how that will be implemented.
	Through the efforts of individual Government Departments and the support of the Chief Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office, we have already generated £12 billion of efficiency savings in Whitehall, but we believe there is room to do even more. If all Departments reduced their spending on administration in line with the best-performing Departments, such as Education and Communities and Local Government, another £1 billion could be saved. If all Departments made greater provision of digital services, rationalised their property estates, as some have done, a further £1 billion could be saved. Today, therefore, we are reducing departmental resource budgets by 1% next year and 2% in the year after.
	We will continue to seek efficiency savings in the NHS and in our schools, but that money will be recycled to protect spending in these priority areas. Local government budgets are already being held down next year to deliver the freeze in council tax, so we will not seek the additional 1% savings next year, but we will look for the 2% saving the year after. Although the Ministry of Defence is included in these measures, it will be given flexibility on its multi-year budget to ensure that this will not lead to reductions in military manpower or the core defence equipment programme over the Parliament.
	A mark of our values as a society is our commitment to the world’s poorest. We made a promise as a country that we would spend 0.7% of our gross national income on international development and I am proud to be part of the first British Government in history who will honour that commitment and honour it as promised next year. We will not, however, spend more than 0.7% so, as we did last year, we will adjust the Department for International Development’s budget to reflect the latest economic forecasts.
	In the medium term these savings across Whitehall will help Departments maintain the right trajectory for the years that follow the spending review and help us to pay off the deficit in future. In the short term, I am switching these current savings into capital—all the money saved in the first two years will be reinvested as part of a £5 billion capital investment in the infrastructure of our country. Despite the fiscal challenges we face, public investment as a share of GDP will be higher on average in this Parliament than it was under the last Labour Government. It is exactly what a Government equipping Britain to compete in the modern global economy should be doing.
	We are committing an extra £1 billion to roads, which includes four major new schemes: to upgrade key sections of the Al, bringing the route from London to Newcastle up to motorway standard; to link the A5 with the Ml; to dual the A30 in Cornwall; and to upgrade the M25, which will support the biggest port developments in Europe. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) for campaigning to achieve this.
	We have already set out plans this autumn for a huge investment in rail, and my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary will set out in the new year plans to take High Speed 2 to the north-west and west Yorkshire. I can today confirm a £1 billion loan and a guarantee to extend the Northern line to Battersea power station and support a new development on a similar scale to the Olympic park.
	We are confirming funding and reforms to assist construction of up to 120,000 new homes and delivering on flood defence schemes in more cities. On top of broadband expansion for our countryside and our larger cities, we are funding ultrafast broadband in 12 smaller cities: Brighton and Hove, Cambridge, Coventry, Derby, Oxford, Portsmouth, Salford, York, Newport, Aberdeen, Perth and Derry/Londonderry. In addition to the third of a billion announced this autumn for British science, we are today announcing £600 million more for the UK’s scientific research infrastructure.
	Since improving our education system is the best investment in a competitive economy, I am today committing £270 million to fund improvements in further education colleges and £1 billion to expand good schools and build 100 new free schools and academies. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will get their Barnett share of additional capital spending put at the disposal of their devolved Administrations.
	On top of the £5 billion of new capital spending in infrastructure and support for business, we are ready to provide guarantees for up to £40 billion more. Today I can announce that projects worth £10 billion have already pre-qualified. We are offering £10 billion-worth of guarantees for housing, too. Our country’s pension funds will launch their new independent infrastructure
	investment platform next year as well, and we have today published full details of the replacement for the discredited private finance initiative. Since we can all see now that the public sector was sharing the risk, we will now ensure that we also share in the reward, and I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) for his work in this area.
	Taken together, this is a revolution in the sources of finance for upgrading Britain’s infrastructure and equipping Britain to win in the global race. Annual average infrastructure investment, which was £29 billion under the last Labour Government, is now £33 billion.
	Savings from Whitehall are not enough by themselves to tackle our debts. We need to find other savings, and we need to do so in a way that is fair. Those with the most should contribute the most, and they will, but fairness is also about being fair to the person who leaves home every morning to go out to work and sees that their neighbour is still asleep, living a life on benefits. As well as a tax system where the richest pay their fair share, we have to have a welfare system that is fair to the working people who pay for it.
	Let me start with tax. The vast majority of people, rich or otherwise, pay their taxes and make their contribution. However, there are still too many who illegally evade their taxes or use aggressive tax avoidance in order not to pay their fair share. This Government have taken more action against those people than any before us. Prosecutions for tax evasion are up 80%. We will collect £7 billion more a year in tax that is due than the last Government. We are increasing by about 2,500 the number of tax inspectors going after evaders and avoiders. Next year, we will introduce the first ever general anti-abuse rule—something that never happened in the 13 years before we came into office.
	Next year, for the first time in our history, money will be flowing from bank accounts in Switzerland to Britain, instead of the other way around. Because of the treaty that we have signed, we expect to receive £5 billion over the next six years from the undisclosed Swiss bank accounts of UK residents. That is the largest tax evasion settlement in British history.
	We are taking further steps today. Hundreds of millions of pounds of tax loopholes are being closed with immediate effect, and we are investigating the abusive use of partnerships. HMRC will not have its budget cut over the next two years, unlike other departments. Instead, we will spend £77 million more on fighting tax avoidance, and not just for wealthy individuals.
	We want to have the most competitive corporate tax system of any major economy in the world, but we expect those corporate taxes to be paid. We are therefore confirming today that we will put more resources into ensuring that multinational companies pay their proper share of taxes. We are leading the international effort to prevent artificial transfers of profits to tax havens. With Germany and now France, we have asked the OECD to take that work forward and we will make it an important priority of our G8 presidency next year. In total, we expect the action that we are announcing today to increase the amount of money collected from tax evasion and avoidance by a further £2 billion a year.
	Fair and necessary as that is, it is not enough by itself to close the deficit. We need to ask more from the better-off. Punitive tax rates do nothing to raise money,
	and simply discourage enterprise and investment into Britain. Other countries on our doorstep are trying that approach and paying the price. We are not making that mistake. HMRC data reveal that in the first year of the 50% tax rate, tax revenues from the rich fell by £7 billion and the number of people declaring incomes of over £1 million fell by a half. A tax raid on the rich that raises almost no money is a tax con. We are going to have a top rate of tax that supports enterprise and we are going to raise more money from the rich. Here is a simple fact: the richest will pay a greater share of income tax revenues in every single year of the coalition Government than in any one of the 13 years of the last Labour Government.
	However, to make sure that the deficit reduction remains fair, we need to raise more. We have already raised stamp duty on multi-million pound homes and next week we will publish the legislation to stop the richest avoiding stamp duty. But we will not introduce a new tax on property. That would require the revaluation of hundreds of thousands of homes. In my view, it would be intrusive, it would be expensive to levy, it would raise little and the temptation for future Chancellors to bring ever more homes into its net would be irresistible, so we are not having a new homes tax.
	In this Parliament, we have already reduced the amount of tax relief that we give to the very largest pension pots. From 2014-15, I will further reduce the lifetime allowance from £1.5 million to £1.25 million, and reduce the annual allowance from £50,000 to £40,000. That will reduce the cost of tax relief to the public purse by an extra £1 billion a year by 2016-17. Ninety-eight per cent. of the people currently approaching retirement have a pension pot worth less than £1.25 million. Indeed, the median pot for such people is just £55,000. Ninety-nine per cent. of pension savers make annual contributions to their pensions of less than £40,000. The average contribution to a pension is just £6,000 a year.
	I know that these tax measures will not be welcomed by all—ways to reduce the deficit never are—but we must demonstrate that we are all in this together. When looking for savings, I think that it is fair to look at the tax relief that we give to the top 1%.
	I want to help the great majority of savers. That is why we are introducing a generous new single-tier pension, so that people know it always pays to save. That is why I will uprate next April the overall individual savings account limit to £11,520. We will also consult on allowing investments in equity markets for small and medium-sized enterprises, such as the alternative investment market, to be held directly in stocks and shares ISAs to encourage investment in growing businesses.
	I have also listened to the concerns from pensioners about draw-down limits. I am today announcing that the Government will raise the capped draw-down limit from 100% to 120%, giving pensioners with such arrangements the option of increasing their incomes.
	It is also fair to look at the way in which we uprate benefits and some tax thresholds. The basic state pension has this year gone up by the largest cash amount in its history. Next year, thanks to our triple lock, I confirm that it will rise by 2.5%, which is higher than either earnings or inflation. That takes the level of the full basic state pension to £110.15 a week.
	When it comes to working-age welfare, we have already made substantial reforms. We have cut £18 billion a
	year from the welfare bill. Benefits are being capped for the first time, so families out of work will not get more than the average family gets for being in work. We have increased efforts to fight welfare fraud. Today, we announce further measures and checks to save more than £1 billion in the next four years by reducing fraud, error and debt in the tax credit system. Next year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will introduce the new universal credit so that it always pays to work. Today, we are setting the key parameters, such as the levels of earning disregards.
	We have to acknowledge that over the last five years, those on out-of-work benefits have seen their incomes rise twice as fast as those in work. With pay restraint in businesses and Government, average earnings have risen by about 10% since 2007. Out-of-work benefits have gone up by about 20%. That is not fair to working people who pay the taxes that fund them. Those working in the public services, who have seen their basic pay frozen, will now see it rise by an average of 1%. A similar approach of a 1% rise should apply to those in receipt of benefits. That is fair and it will ensure that we have a welfare system that Britain can afford. We will support the vulnerable, so carers’ benefits and disability benefits, including disability elements of tax credits, will be increased in line with inflation, and we are extending the support for mortgage interest for two more years.
	However, most working-age benefits, including jobseeker’s allowance, employment and support allowance and income support, will be uprated by 1% for the next three years. We will also uprate elements of child tax credit and working tax credit by 1% for the next three years, although previously planned freezes will go ahead. Local housing allowance rates, which are a central component of housing benefit, will be uprated in line with the existing policy next April and we will then cap increases at 1% in the two years after that. For that measure, 30% of the savings will be used to exempt from the new cap those areas with the highest rent increases. The earning disregards for universal credit will also be uprated by 1% for two years from April 2014. Child benefit is currently frozen. It, too, will now rise by 1% for two years from April 2014.
	Let me be clear: uprating benefits at 1% means that people get more cash, but less than the rate of inflation. Taken together, we will save £3.7 billion in 2015-16 and deliver permanent savings each and every year from our country’s welfare bill. To bring all those decisions on many benefits over many years together, we will introduce primary legislation in Parliament in the welfare uprating Bill. I hope that it will command support from both sides of the House.
	We will apply a similar approach to uprating some of our tax thresholds to that that we are applying to welfare. The higher rate threshold will be increased by 1% in the tax years 2014-15 and 2015-16. So the income at which people start paying the 40% rate will go up from £41,450 to £41,865 and then to £42,285. I want to be completely clear with people: this is an increase; in fact, it is the first cash increase in the higher rate threshold in this Parliament, but it is not an increase in line with inflation, so it will raise £1 billion of revenue
	by 2015-16. Again, there are no easy ways to reduce the deficit, but from year to year, no one will pay a penny more in income tax.
	In the same way, the capital gains tax annual exempt amount will be increased by 1% over the same period, reaching £11,100. The inheritance tax nil-band rate, which has been frozen since 2009 at £325,000, will be increased by 1% in 2015-16 to £329,000. Taken with the welfare uprating decisions, that is a fair approach to paying off Britain’s debts.
	However, dealing with those debts is only one part of making Britain fit to compete in the global race. Countries like ours risk being out-smarted, outworked and out-competed by the new emerging economies. We asked Michael Heseltine to report on how to make the Government work better for business and enterprise. I think that it is fair to say that his answer has captured the imagination of all political parties.
	We will respond formally in the spring, but here is what we will do now. First, Government spending should be aligned with the priorities of the local business community. We will provide new money to support the local enterprise partnerships, and from April 2015, the Government will place more of the funding that currently goes to local transport, housing, skills and getting people back to work into a single pot that LEPs can bid for. Details will be set out in the spending review. Before then, we are putting more money into the regional growth fund, which is helping businesses create half a million new jobs.
	Secondly, as Lord Heseltine also recommends, we will support industries and technologies where Britain has a clear advantage. With the support of my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary, we will extend our global lead in aerospace and support the supply chains of advanced manufacturing. We are also taking big steps today to support British companies that export to new emerging markets in Asia, Africa and the Americas. I am increasing the funding for UK Trade & Investment by more than 25% a year, so that it can help more firms build the capacity of overseas British chambers and maintain our country’s position as the No. 1 destination in Europe for foreign investment. We are also launching a new £1.5 billion export finance facility to support the purchase of British exports.
	Thirdly, we are addressing credit problems for companies. We are creating a new business bank, and today we have confirmed that we are providing it with £1 billion of extra capital, which will lever in private lending to help small and medium-sized firms and bring together existing schemes.
	Fourthly, we are going to cut business taxes still further. Let me explain how. The temporary doubling of the small business rate relief scheme helps more than half a million small firms, with 350,000 paying no rates at all. The previous Government were going to end it in September 2011; we have already extended it to next April, and, today, I extend it by a further year, to April 2014. We also confirm today the tax relief for our employee shareholder scheme.
	The Energy Bill provides certainty and support for billions of pounds of investment in renewable energy. Today, we publish our gas strategy to ensure that we make the best use of lower-cost gas power, including new sources of gas under the land. We are consulting on
	new tax incentives for shale gas and announcing the creation of a single office so that regulation is safe but simple. We do not want British families and businesses to be left behind as gas prices tumble on the other side of the Atlantic.
	We are going to help our construction industry, too. The previous Government abolished empty property relief, and, as excellent work done by my hon. Friends the Members for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) and for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal) and others shows, that has blighted development in our towns and cities. The proposal from my colleagues that we create a long grace period before newly completed buildings have to pay empty property rates is sensible, and we will introduce it next October.
	The previous Government also planned to increase the small companies tax rate to 22%. We have cut it to 20%. However, I would like to help small and medium-sized firms more, and I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle) and for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson) for their thoughts on that matter. Starting on 1 January, and for the next two years, I will increase tenfold the annual investment allowance in plant and machinery. Instead of £25,000-worth of investment being eligible for 100% relief, £250,000-worth of investment will now qualify. That capital allowance will cover the total annual investment undertaken by 99% of all the business in Britain. It is a huge boost to all those who run a business and who aspire to grow, expand and create jobs.
	I want Britain to have the most competitive business tax regime of any major economy in the world. I have already cut the main core rate of corporation tax from 28% to 24%, and it is set to fall further to 22%. That has helped British companies and frankly left other countries scrambling to keep up. They will have to try harder, for I am today cutting the main corporation tax rate again by a further 1%. In America, the rate is 40%; in France, it is 33%; in Germany, it is 29%. From April 2014, the corporation tax rate in Britain will stand at 21%. That is the lowest rate of any major western economy. It is an advert for our country that says, “Come here; invest here; create jobs here; Britain is open for business.”
	We will not pass the benefit of that reduced rate on to banks, and to ensure that we meet our revenue commitments, the bank levy rate will be increased to 0.130% next year. Making banks contribute more is part of our major reforms to the banking system.
	We also have to be on the side of those who want to work hard and get on. I know how difficult many families have found the cost of living. In dealing with the deficit, we have had to save money. However, whenever we have been able to help, we have. We have helped councils freeze council tax for two years running, and we are helping them freeze it again next year. We have put a cap on rail fare rises for the next two years, so commuters are not punished for travelling to work. We are forcing energy companies to move families on to the lowest tariffs for their gas and electricity bills.
	We have also helped motorists with the cost of petrol. We have cancelled the last Government’s escalator, and I am moving inflation-only rises to September. Fuel is 10p per litre cheaper than it would have been if we had stuck to Labour’s tax plans, and I want to keep it that way, as I know do my colleagues, like my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon). There is a 3p
	per litre rise planned for this January. Now, some have suggested that we delay it until April. I disagree. I suggest we cancel it altogether. There will be no 3p fuel tax rise this January. That is real help with the cost of living for families as they fill up their cars across the country, and it will help businesses, too. It means that, under this Government, we will have had no increase in petrol taxes for nearly two and a half years. In fact, they have been cut.
	We have also helped working people by increasing the amount that they can earn before paying any income tax. When the coalition Government came to office, the personal tax allowance stood at just £6,475; next April, it is set to rise to £9,205.
	Twenty-four million taxpayers have seen their income tax cut; 2 million of the lowest-paid have been taken out of tax altogether. Because of the difficult decisions we have taken today, we can go even further. From next April, the personal allowance will rise by a further £235. That means a total increase next year of £1,335—the highest cash increase ever. People will be able to earn £9,440 before paying any income tax at all. This is a direct boost to the incomes of people working hard to provide for their families. It is £47 extra in cash next year. In total, it is a £267 cash increase next year. People working full time on the minimum wage will have seen their income tax bill cut in half, and we are within touching distance of the £10,000 personal allowance. And at this time, I propose to extend the benefits of this further increase to higher rate taxpayers. That decision will stand alongside the decision I have had to take on uprating, meaning that, in real terms, a typical higher rate taxpayer will be better off next year and no worse off in total by the year after.
	Today we have helped working people, but I do not want to distract from the tough economic situation we face in the world. The public know there are no miracle cures; just the hard work of dealing with our deficit and ensuring Britain wins the global race. That work is under way. The deficit is down. Borrowing is down. Jobs are being created. It is a hard road, but we are making progress, and in everything we do, we are helping those who want to work hard and get on.

Edward Balls: Today, after two and a half years, we can see, and people can feel in the country, the true scale of this Government’s economic failure. The economy this year is contracting. The Chancellor has confirmed that Government borrowing is revised up this year, next year and every year. The national deficit is not rising—[ Interruption. ] I will say it again. Our economy is contracting this year; Government borrowing and the deficit are revised up this year, next year and every year; and the national debt is rising, not falling. It is people who are already struggling to make ends meet, middle and lower-income families and pensioners, who are paying the price, while millionaires get a tax cut—a £3 billion welfare handout to the people who need it least.
	Let me spell out the full facts to the House—[ Interruption. ] Government Members should listen. They might learn something. In June 2010, the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast that our economy
	would grow by 2.8% this year. In March this year, it said there would still be growth, but revised it down to just 0.8%. Today, we learn that the Chancellor has not managed even that. Growth has not only been downgraded yet again, but he has confirmed, following the double-dip recession, that our economy is now forecast to actually contract inside this year, by 0.1%.
	Let me remind the House what the Chancellor promised over two years ago in the June Budget. He said:
	“We have provided the foundations for economic recovery in all parts of our nation”.
	He said:
	“We have set the course for a balanced budget and falling national debt by the end of this Parliament.”
	And he said:
	“The richest paying the most and the”
	most
	“vulnerable protected”.—[Official Report, 22 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 180.]
	That was the promise, but far from the Chancellor securing our recovery, our economy has flatlined since the spending review in 2010. Over the past two years, he was expecting 4.6% growth, but he has actually achieved 0.6% growth, which compares with 1.7% in France, 3.6% in Germany and 4.1% in America. We are falling behind in the global race. We learn today that growth is being downgraded this year, next year, the year after, the year after, and the year after that too—the longest double-dip recession since the second world war now followed by the slowest recovery in the past 100 years.
	The result of this stagnation—rising long-term unemployment and long-term damage to our economy, falling behind now as other countries move ahead—is that the Chancellor’s fiscal strategy has been completely derailed. The defining purpose of the Government, the cornerstone of the coalition, the one test they set themselves: to balance the books and get the debt falling by 2015, is now in tatters.
	What we have learned today is that Government borrowing has been revised up this year, next year and the year after that. We now know that, compared with the Chancellor’s forecast two years ago, borrowing is now forecast to be well above the £150 billion of extra borrowing that he was forecasting in March—[ Interruption. ] Government Members should listen to this. The Chancellor has confirmed that the Prime Minister’s pledge to balance the books in 2015 is not met in 2015, it is not met in 2016 and it is not met in 2017. The fact is that there is more borrowing this year, next year and the year after.
	The Opposition will look at the detail when we get the figures—it was disappointing that the Chancellor failed to give us the cash figures adjusted for borrowing this year, next year and the year after. The unusual thing is that, just a few weeks ago, the independent forecasters were saying that borrowing would be £6 billion higher this year. We will examine the detail of those figures to see whether there has been any dodgy dealing. We will find out in the coming hours. [ Interruption. ] I do not know because I have not seen the figures, but I do know that there is more borrowing this year, more borrowing next year and more borrowing the year after.
	The result is that the OBR shows more borrowing and higher deficits means higher national debt. The national debt—[ Interruption. ] The Prime Minister should listen to this, even if it might be rather shocking to find out. National debt will be higher at the end of this Parliament than the level inherited; it will be higher at the end of this Parliament than forecast in the plans he inherited; and it is no longer falling as a percentage of GDP in 2015. It is rising in 2015 and rising again in 2016, breaking the fiscal rule for falling debt upon which the Chancellor said his entire credibility depended. In last year’s Budget, the Chancellor said,
	“our deficit reduction plan is on course…we will not waiver”.—[Official Report, 21 March 2012; Vol. 542, c. 795.]
	On course? Not waivering? He is not waivering, he is drowning.
	The Chancellor is now trying to claim that his failure on growth, his failure on borrowing and the debt, and breaking his own fiscal rule, are not his fault—that no one could have foreseen it. What nonsense; he was warned. He was warned that a tough medium-term plan to cut the deficit, tax rises, spending cuts and pay restraint, which every country had to put in place, could work only if the Government first put in place a plan for jobs and growth. He was warned that it was a huge gamble to go too far, too fast, and to rely on exports to bail him out. He was warned that there was a hurricane brewing in the eurozone, and that it was not the time to rip out the foundations of the house here in Britain. Once again, the Chancellor is trying to blame high oil prices and the eurozone crisis for negative growth this year, but they affected all countries, so why, over the last—[ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. I apologise for interrupting. Members must calm themselves. Mr Byles, I thought you were normally a model of restraint and civility. Good heavens man! I do not know what has come over you. Calm yourself—take a pill if necessary, but keep calm. Take up yoga.

Edward Balls: Growth down, borrowing up, debt up—they don’t like it, Mr Speaker, do they? They don’t like it at all.
	Once again, the Chancellor is trying to blame high oil prices and the eurozone crisis, so let me ask him: why, over the past two years, has Britain grown at just one tenth of the average growth rate of the G20 countries? Why has growth here in Britain been even slower than in the eurozone? It is not the rest of the world’s fault—it is his policies that have failed. He claimed that rising VAT alongside accelerated spending cuts would boost confidence, secure recovery and get the deficit down, but they depressed confidence, choked off our recovery and borrowing has been revised up. Let me ask the Chancellor: whatever happened to his Treasury view—his theory of expansionary fiscal contraction? Expansionary fiscal contraction? It is the economy that has contracted and the borrowing and the debt that have expanded. That is the truth.
	When the latest figures show business confidence falling, when the world economy is slowing, when the eurozone is in such chronic difficulty, and when on current plans the Chancellor’s fiscal straitjacket tightens further next year, it is simply reckless and deeply
	irresponsible of this Chancellor to plough on with a fiscal plan that we all know is failing on the terms he set. That is the truth.
	What a wasted opportunity this statement was. Can the Chancellor confirm that the independent OBR looked at the measures he has announced today, and that its verdict is that growth is revised down this year, next year and the year after?
	Let me congratulate the Chancellor on taking our advice and stopping January’s fuel duty rise, even though Government Members all voted against it just a month ago. We welcome the U-turns on flood defences, in part, on regional pay bargaining in the NHS, and on capital allowances. After churches, charities, pasties, skips, fuel and caravans, I think this U-turning is catching on, but whatever happened to the plans for the business investment bank? As for yesterday’s announcement on infrastructure spending, the extra money for schools is just a fraction of the cut from the cancellation of Building Schools for the Future.
	We have been here before. A year ago, the Prime Minister boasted of a national infrastructure plan; 12 months on, not a single road scheme has even started. Why cannot he see that he will not get the deficit down without a plan for jobs and growth? Why is he not using the 4G money to get 100,000 new homes built? Why is he not offering a national insurance holiday for small firms? Why not have a temporary tax cut for families? Even the Mayor supports that. Why is the Chancellor not repeating the bank bonus tax? The Chancellor says he cannot do any of that because it would lead to higher borrowing. Even his political attacks are backfiring, because this Chancellor’s failed plan has given us more welfare spending, higher borrowing and higher debt too. That is the reality. The truth is that the Chancellor has failed on growth and the deficit, but what is his answer? More of the same.
	Let me remind the Chancellor what he told the House in the Budget of 2011. He said that
	“we have already asked the British people for what is needed, and…we do not need to ask for more.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 951.]
	But 18 months on the Chancellor has come back for more, and who does he think should pay? Not the 8,000 millionaires set to get more than £100,000 each in April. I have to ask the Liberal Democrats: whatever happened to the mansion tax? Do they not realise that, even with the changes in the personal allowance, as a result of the other things they have supported the average family with children on £20,000 is worse off—and that is before the VAT rise?
	The Chancellor claims that his decision to restrict pension tax relief will make the tax system fairer at the top. Can he confirm that the £1 billion he is raising is less than the £1.6 billion that he gave back in pension tax relief in June 2010? And it is just a fraction of the top-rate tax cut—a £3 billion top-rate tax cut at the same time as the Chancellor is cutting tax credits for working families, cutting child benefit for middle-income families, raising taxes on pensioners in April and cutting benefits for the unemployed.
	We do need to reform and modernise our welfare state and reduce its cost. Those who can work should work—no ifs or buts. We support a benefit cap, done fairly, with a higher level in London, but let us be clear.
	The Chancellor claimed he would cut the welfare bill, but higher inflation and long-term unemployment mean that the benefits bill is forecast to be billions higher in this Parliament than he boasted. Let me help him: welfare to work—the clue is in the name. We cannot have a successful welfare to work programme without work, and we know that the Work programme has totally failed, with only two people in 100 going into permanent jobs.
	We should require every young and long-term unemployed person to take a job—and make sure there is one there. Let me ask the Chancellor about a nurse, one of the thousands cut from the NHS in the past two years, who is now struggling to find a new job. For that nurse, he has announced today that he is cutting her jobseeker’s allowance for the next three years. How can that be fair when he is cutting the top rate of tax? How can it be fair when someone earning £228,000 a year will get a top-rate tax cut of £75 a week in April, which is more than the £71 the nurse gets to live on through JSA?
	We learned today that the Chancellor is not just hitting those looking for work. The majority of people who lose from his cuts to tax credits are people in work—millions of families striving hard to do the right thing. What kind of Government believe that you can only make low-paid working people work harder by cutting their tax credits, but you only make millionaires work harder by cutting their taxes, Mr Speaker? I tell you: certainly not a one nation Government.
	The Government must really believe that if taxes are cut at the top the wealth will trickle down. Let me remind the House what the Chancellor told the Conservative party conference in October 2009. He said that
	“we could not even think of abolishing the 50p rate on the rich while at the same time I am asking many of our public sector workers to accept a pay freeze to protect their jobs.”
	Those were the Chancellor’s words. He continued:
	“I think we can all agree that would be grossly unfair.”
	What has changed? Nothing has changed. It was all a con and the mask has slipped. We now know that this Chancellor cannot say, “We’re all in this together” without a smirk on his face. They wanted us to think they were compassionate Conservatives. Now we find out that they are the same old Conservatives, and the Liberal Democrats have gone along with all of it yet again.
	What a pity it is not to see the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) in her place, back from the jungle. She may not have succeeded in talking for the nation on many things but she did speak for the nation when she called the Prime Minister and the Chancellor
	“two arrogant posh boys who don’t know the price of milk.”
	It is no wonder the Prime Minister keeps losing his temper, because his worst nightmare is coming true—not snakes and spiders in the jungle, but the Government’s fiscal rule broken, their economic credibility in tatters, exposed as incompetent and unfair. Yes, he’s the Chancellor; can’t someone get him out of here? Growth down, borrowing revised up and the fiscal rules broken: on every target they have set themselves, they are failing, failing, failing. They are cutting the NHS, not the deficit; they are borrowing more than £212 billion more than they promised two years ago; and they are cutting
	taxes for the rich, while struggling families and pensioners pay the price—unfair, incompetent and completely out of touch.

George Osborne: There is only one person in the Chamber who is drowning, and it is the shadow Chancellor. That was the worst reply to an autumn statement I have ever heard in this House. If one thing changes as a result of this statement, it might be a shadow Cabinet reshuffle.
	The shadow Chancellor said one thing that was true. He said it right at the beginning—he said that the national deficit was not rising. It was a Freudian slip, but it betrayed the fact that he had written his response before he heard my autumn statement and before he looked at the OBR forecast. Let me tell him that we do not fiddle the numbers in the Treasury any more—that is what happened when he was there. We have an independent Office for Budgetary Responsibility, and that is the problem he has. His whole policy was about complaining that borrowing and the deficit were going up, but that is not what the OBR forecasts show. Indeed, his prescription is to borrow even more. He complains about debt, but he wants to put it up. It is completely hopeless.
	The shadow Chancellor talked about the substance of policies. Here are some simple questions that the Labour party will have to answer. If it is against the cut in the income tax rate from 50p to 45p, will it reverse it? It is the simplest possible question. [Interruption.] The Leader of the Opposition says it has not come in yet. It is coming in—it has been legislated for—so, if he is so against it and thinks it a moral outrage, will he commit to reverse it? Yes or no? That is hopeless position No. 1.
	The shadow Chancellor railed at welfare benefits. I have another simple question. Will the Opposition support us or vote against a welfare uprating Bill? What are they going to do? Will they vote for or against the Bill? It is a simple question. For the first time, we have spending plans for 2015-16. He said nothing about whether he supported those plans, even though he hopes to be Chancellor that year. Does he support those spending plans? He talked about 3G. [Interruption.] They are shouting at me.

Edward Miliband: 4G.

George Osborne: The 4G licence, yes. We are using the 4G licence. [Interruption.] May I say something about the 4G licence? The shadow Chancellor had 20 minutes to make his points, but he did not make any at all. We are using the 4G money, in part, for new capital spending, including building further education colleges, one of which is called the Leeds city college, in a town called Morley in west Yorkshire. I am not sure what the local MP would make of the shadow Chancellor’s decision that that is not the best use of the money, but he can look at himself in the mirror and ask that question.
	The shadow Chancellor cannot answer these basic questions. He tries to claim that all the problems in Britain began in May 2010 and that they are all the fault of this Government. Literally only the people in the Brownite cabal claim that; there is not a single other person in the Labour party, in any business organisation or in any of the international bodies who believes that. The reason he has to maintain this completely incredible
	position is that if he admitted that the previous Government were responsible for the problems in our country, he would have to admit that he was responsible for them.
	Out of necessity not choice, therefore, the Labour party leader has a shadow Chancellor who is more associated with the economic mismanagement that led to Britain’s problems than anyone else in Britain. He will not let his party move on. He is a man trapped in the past. The one thing the Opposition need to say is: “We’re sorry. We spent too much and we borrowed too much, but we won’t do it again”, but that is the one thing the shadow Chancellor cannot say. Until he does, though, the British public will never trust him or the Labour party with the public finances again.

Andrew Tyrie: What the business community—the bedrock of economic recovery—needs most of all is stability, and I believe that what we have heard today delivers more stability. Does the Chancellor agree that businesses, particularly small businesses, need banks that lend? With that in mind, will he examine the radical options to achieve that—opening up banks to much more competition from new lenders, as the Treasury Committee has recommended; cleaning up bank balance sheets, as the Bank of England has advocated in the financial stability report; and possibly even breaking up one or more of the state-owned banks to improve their funding and hence lending?

George Osborne: My hon. Friend makes a good point: many of the problems in our economy are borne of the credit constraints and the elevated bank funding costs, which I talked about when I mentioned the OBR’s assessment of the economic forecast. There are several responses. The funding for lending scheme has brought bank funding costs down. That scheme, according to the OBR’s assessment, has had an impact, and it is an important part of our macro response. I agree with him that we must do much more to encourage competition in our banking system. We have some new entrants, but we can go further, and we need a much more competitive banking system able to serve the public better.

David Miliband: This time last year, the Chancellor told me not to worry about youth unemployment on the grounds that his Youth Contract would take care of it. Now we know that 450,000 young people have been unemployed for more than six months and that 179,000 have gone on to the Work programme but only 5,920 have got a job as a result. That is 3% of those going on the Work programme and less than 2% of the long-term youth unemployed. Will he now agree, without point scoring, to look at the level of the wage subsidy to incentivise take-up, at the structure of the Work programme, so that voluntary organisations are not squeezed out, and at the role of a part-time job guarantee to give hope to these young people?

George Osborne: The right hon. Gentleman often has interesting and intelligent things to say about welfare to work programmes, and I am happy to consider the points he makes. I read some of his work earlier this year—it was quite a good job application for being shadow Chancellor.

John Redwood: Given that we need sensible amounts of new money and credit to fuel the private sector recovery, will the Chancellor update us on when RBS might be in a position to
	increase its balance sheets again—prudently—in order to make those loans available and when it might start to make a profit for the taxpayer, and will he consider the comments of those of us who think it needs to be split up to have more competitive and sensible banking?

George Osborne: I very much respect my right hon. Friend’s observations on the problems in our banking system. There is an aggressive plan to reduce the bad bank elements of RBS, and that plan is on track, but, as I said earlier, I want more to be done. RBS is reducing the size of its investment bank quite considerably. It also recently received advice from the Financial Policy Committee, and I hope it takes that advice into account.

Alistair Darling: If I understood the Chancellor correctly, the profile of rising growth that he announced today looks remarkably similar to the profile that he announced in 2010, but which singularly failed to materialise. That, of course, is one reason why he has missed his debt target. Will he tell us why we should have any more confidence in the next set of figures, which show recovery, albeit postponed for several years? Of all the capital projects that he announced today—which I think many of us would support—how many will start this year?

George Osborne: The first thing I would say to the right hon. Gentleman is that the forecasts we produce are independent—they are produced by the Office for Budget Responsibility. This is the OBR’s best estimate of what will happen to GDP over the next few years. As the OBR says, its forecast two years ago was wrong because of three things, which it talks about. One is that the impact of the financial crisis was greater than it had assessed. Secondly, there was an oil price shock in 2011, which hit all oil-consuming economies. Thirdly, there was the impact of the eurozone, which the right hon. Gentleman has spoken about at length. All those things have had an impact, not just on the GDP of this country but on basically every western democracy in the world. Indeed, they have also had an impact on some of the emerging economies.
	The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point about capital investment. He speaks with experience: it is often difficult to get these projects out the door. We are speeding up the delivery of these projects—the road schemes are under way. The capital we have allocated is for the next two years. The road schemes and the like that I announced are due to start—because they have got planning permission—in the next two years.

Michael Fabricant: Is the Chancellor aware that since he sat, down the markets—not the Opposition—have given their verdict? The answer is this: the latest 10-year bond rate for Italy is 4.5% and for France it is 2%—just over, in fact—while the rate for British bonds is only 1.8%. It is the markets that count, not the party that caused the problem in the first place.

George Osborne: My hon. Friend reminds us that we get a daily verdict on the credibility of our economic policy from bond investors. We are borrowing money more cheaply than anyone who has done my job before us, and there is a real benefit for taxpayers and members of the public in that. We have saved £33 billion in debt
	interest that we were forecast to have to pay in 2010, which, as I said in my statement, is more than the entire defence budget.

Dennis Skinner: When the cheering has died down on the Budget statement, it will be just as it was on previous occasions, such as in 2010, when the Chancellor made his first statement. When it was stripped bare, it was a totally different story. In 2010, he promised massively to cut the deficit; but here we are, two and a half years later, and he has cut the nurses and the national health service. This posh boy never changes. Now, instead of being a Bullingdon boy who wrecks the hotel rooms, as Chancellor of the Exchequer he wrecks the economy. It is time he went.

George Osborne: I am not sure that that personal attack warrants a proper reply.

Mary Macleod: My right hon. Friend mentioned that 1.2 million jobs had been created in the private sector. Examples include Aker Solutions in Chiswick, in my constituency, which has gone from employing 30 staff to planning to employ 1,300 by 2015. Does he agree that this shows the Government are rebalancing the economy and encouraging inward investment?

George Osborne: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: jobs are being created. Of course the economic situation is tough—it is tough in every western economy at the moment—but we are rebalancing our economy. One of the things I have sought to do in today’s statement—it is not the bit that will attract all the newspaper headlines—is expand our export promotion effort and ensure that UK Trade and Investment is better at encouraging exports and investment, ensuring that British overseas chambers of commerce are better equipped in the emerging economies. All these things are so important, because one of the big strategic mistakes we made as a country over the last 15 years was not to expand our market share—in the way that Germany did, for example—in those emerging economies, which have become so important.

John Denham: I have heard the Chancellor make a number of statements to this House. Is it a fair summary to say that every time he has done so, he has told us that the economy has not grown since the last time he was here, that he is planning to borrow more than the last time he was here, that spending on public services will be cut more than the last time he was here, and that future growth will be less than the last time he was here? In view of that record, should he be looking quite so pleased with himself?

George Osborne: This Government came in in May 2010, picking up the pieces of an incredibly difficult economic inheritance. We were recovering from the deepest recession since the second world war—which, as I pointed out in my statement, was a contraction of over 6% in the economy, which puts today’s numbers into some context—and we were dealing with the problems in the banking system, and we have been hit with the problems in the eurozone. Despite all that, we have made progress. We have got credibility in the bond markets, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) said, the deficit has come down, and jobs are being
	created. It is a difficult situation, but we are on the right track. Going back, as the right hon. Gentleman would suggest, would be a complete disaster.

Stephen Williams: Liberal Democrat priorities for the coalition have been delivering £10,000 of tax-free pay for every working family in the country, effective taxes on the wealthy, and closing down opportunities for tax evasion and tax avoidance. Does the Chancellor agree that today’s very welcome news of a further rise in the personal tax threshold—to £9,440, putting us within touching distance of £10,000—a restriction on tax relief on pension contributions for the very rich, and more resources to tackle tax evasion and tax avoidance effectively show that the coalition Government are committed to tax fairness even in difficult times?

George Osborne: I do agree with my hon. Friend. It is worth remembering that we put together these difficult autumn statements and the like in a coalition. We are able to demonstrate to the rest of the world that Britain has strong and decisive government. I am grateful to my Liberal Democrat colleagues who have helped me in this. I hope that Liberal Democrats and Conservatives can celebrate the increase in the personal allowance. There are many Conservatives who also wanted to achieve that, and it was in the Liberal Democrat manifesto too. The fact that we are able to do that shows that we are helping working people even in these difficult times.

Sammy Wilson: I acknowledge some of the positive impacts that this statement will have on Northern Ireland, including saving people from increases in their electricity bills as a result of the exemption from the carbon price floor, lifting 8,000 people out of tax, and an additional £135 million of capital spending. However, given the rocky road that the Chancellor has said lies ahead and given his credibility in the markets, could he not find his way to borrowing more money for infrastructure projects to create jobs, rather than paying to keep people on the dole?

George Osborne: I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support for some of the measures we have taken to help the Northern Irish economy, which I am well aware has particular problems in the banking system which require even more attention. I have always sought to respond to the Executive’s proposals where there is a specific case for Northern Ireland, as we did with trans-Atlantic flights, for example. More generally, we are committing additional money to infrastructure, and I want some of that additional infrastructure to be in Northern Ireland. We are also guaranteeing infrastructure projects across the United Kingdom, and £10 billion of projects have pre-qualified for that under the legislation we took through Parliament this autumn. That scheme is available to people and companies in Northern Ireland, and if the Executive want to talk to the Treasury about what more we can do to encourage take-up in Northern Ireland, I would be happy for those conversations to take place.

Cheryl Gillan: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s proposals, particularly the extension of the expenditure envelope for infrastructure
	plans, but will he personally ensure that our transport policy is fully integrated? At present, the proposals for HS2 completely ignore any plans we might have to expand our airport capacity. There is little point in building or announcing any extension to the railway if it does not connect adequately to our major international hub airport. Will he personally look into this?

George Osborne: Of course I understand why my right hon. Friend speaks on behalf of her constituents who will be affected by the High Speed 2 development, but I think that it is the right infrastructure for our country, and that it will help to change the economic geography of Britain by connecting some of our northern and midland cities with London. I hope she will acknowledge that we have been generous with some of the compensation as well. She asked specific questions about the extension to Heathrow and the design of the route. My right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary would be better placed to answer them, and in the new year he will have more to say about the route to the north-west and to west Yorkshire.

Joan Ruddock: Bloomberg New Energy Finance has demonstrated that investment in renewable energy has fallen by a half since this Government came to power. Does the Chancellor not agree that we need to look to the future and to invest in green jobs? To that end, will he stop the veto in the Energy Bill of the 2030 decarbonisation target that has been demanded by 1,500 leading companies in this country and recommended by the Committee on Climate Change?

George Osborne: This Government have introduced the UK Green Investment Bank, which is now making investments. I have also introduced a carbon price floor, which is recognised around the world as an effective way of ensuring the decarbonisation of our economy in a market-driven way. We have just published the Energy Bill and a levy control framework that would allow for new investment in renewables through the rest of this decade. The industry has that certainty, alongside the gas strategy. On the decarbonisation target, we are going to take a power in the Bill to set a target, but that will be a decision for after the next carbon budget, which will happen in 2016. That is a perfectly sensible and rational approach to take.

Claire Perry: I congratulate the Chancellor on a statement that was fair, transparent, business friendly and pro-growth, and that confirmed that the deficit is not only not rising but falling in every year of this Parliament. With 19 days to Christmas, which of his family-friendly measures—including scrapping the fuel duty increase, freezing council tax and raising the personal allowance next year—does he think will do most to benefit British families?

George Osborne: We have had to take some difficult decisions on welfare uprating and on tax threshold uprating, but I have tried to help families where I can with the personal allowance and with fuel duty. I have also tried to help businesses, and the annual investment allowance increase to £250,000 will be extremely welcome.

Michael Meacher: How can the Chancellor seriously pretend that he is cracking down on tax avoidance when the £7 billion he referred to today will take up to seven years to realise, at a rate of about £1 billion a year, against a rate of tax avoidance of £35 billion a year? The general anti-avoidance rule that he mentioned is far too narrowly drawn to be effective and—[ Interruption. ] I hope that he will listen to this. At the same time, he is introducing a tax cut from 23% to just 5% for multinationals in tax havens.

George Osborne: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has the right figures. We are increasing the amount recovered from taxes that should have been paid from £13 billion under the Labour Government to £20 billion. That £7 billion increase, plus the £2 billion that I have announced today, makes a £9 billion increase in the taxes that should have been collected and that we are now collecting. I hope he will welcome and support that. By the way, we have also got rid of the situation that happened when the current Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor were in the Treasury, in which people in the City were paying lower tax rates than the people who cleaned for them. We have dealt with that problem.

Alan Beith: Will the Chancellor note that businesses in the north-east will welcome the announcements that he has made today, including that of the removal of bottlenecks on the A1 south of Newcastle, but that there will be concern that he has not yet announced any progress towards dualling the A1 north of Newcastle, a project that his own party promised in 1992?

George Osborne: I am glad that my right hon. Friend welcomes the decision to increase the A1 to motorway standard between the M25 and Newcastle. He makes a powerful point about the A1 north of Newcastle, and I can tell him that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is also a powerful advocate of that road scheme. It is one of the things that the Department for Transport will look at as well, so it is certainly not off the cards. What I have committed to today is the dualling of the A1 up to motorway standard all the way to Newcastle.

Adrian Bailey: The Chancellor has re-announced the creation of the business bank and the funding for it, which is welcome in itself. However, there is widespread incomprehension in the business community as to how that will facilitate lending to small and medium-sized enterprises. Will he take this opportunity to explain how the bank will fill in for small businesses in a way that the existing banking structure does not?

George Osborne: My right hon. Friend the Business Secretary will set out more detail about the business bank. What I have confirmed today is the £1 billion of additional capital. Our ambition is that this will help to lever in private sector capital as well. Through the business finance partnership, which is not included in this £1 billion, we have already undertaken work to get more non-bank financing to medium-sized companies in particular. We are looking at similar models for the business bank, and my right hon. Friend will make an announcement on that. We are also going to use the
	opportunity to bring together all the myriad schemes announced by various Governments on business finance, finance for SMEs and the like, which are sometimes confusing, so that the business community has just one place to go to. As I have said, I have announced £1 billion extra for the business bank.

Andrew Selous: I thank the Chancellor profusely for ending the appalling delay in the building of the A5-M1 link, the construction of which was first announced by the previous Government in 2003. That road will contribute massively to the south Bedfordshire economy, enabling us to contribute to the regeneration of UK plc.

George Osborne: I thank my hon. Friend for campaigning assiduously for that project. He has made a strong case for how the new link road will open up the prospect of real economic development as well as dealing with traffic congestion. That is exactly the kind of programme that we can undertake—it did not happen under the last Labour Government—because we have made the switch from current spending to capital spending. Again, I congratulate him on the campaign that he has fought, which I think has involved quite a few Adjournment debates in the House.

David Lammy: Given the falling number of nurses in the NHS, does the Chancellor recognise that people will view with scepticism what he has said about protecting the NHS? Will he also acknowledge that passing on a 2% cut to local government will involve cuts to adult social services across the country, affecting the vulnerable, the disabled and the elderly?

George Osborne: We have provided billions more for social care—[ Interruption. ] I just want to make this point to Labour Members. They want to be in government, and they claim that they want to cut the deficit, but what would they cut? They object to the local government settlement, the defence settlement, the NHS budget and the education budget, even though the budgets on the NHS and schools are going up, so what exactly would they do? It was evident from the shadow Chancellor’s response today that they do not actually have anything to say on these matters. If they had a credible deficit plan, we would listen to their questions about the priorities for these plans.

John Stevenson: The investment of £270 million in schools and further education colleges is extremely welcome. If schools and colleges in my constituency have plans on the runway that are ready to take off but just need a little bit of additional financial support, will the Chancellor help them to take the leap?

George Osborne: I am very happy to look personally at the case that my hon. Friend makes for his local education facilities. These are of course decisions for other Departments, but we have provided the money for further education, for new free schools and academies, and for expanding places, and I am sure that Carlisle should be near the top of the list.

Steve Reed: Is the Chancellor aware that, because of his continuing inadequate level of funding for school building, which today’s statement does not correct, London Councils—a cross-party
	body—is estimating that, by 2016, one in every 10 primary school-aged child will not have a permanent school place?

George Osborne: I should like to take this opportunity to welcome the hon. Gentleman to the House of Commons and to congratulate him on his by-election victory. He rightly wants to speak on behalf of his constituents, but I would point out that the pressure on London school places has existed for some years and was a huge issue when we came into office. We have provided additional capital spending for new school places. We have also announced more than £1 billion today to deal with areas where there is high pressure. He makes a powerful case for Croydon, and I will make sure that my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary hears him.

Julian Smith: More money for the regional growth fund and local enterprise partnerships is great news for Yorkshire. Can the Chancellor give further details of that?

George Osborne: There will be more money for the regional growth fund. That has been helpful in securing and creating up to half a million new jobs. I am glad to say that I am sure businesses across Yorkshire will benefit from that. We are also, of course, investing in enterprise zones and LEPs across Yorkshire, and Yorkshire businesses will benefit from the enhanced capital allowance and the increase in the annual investment allowance.

Jack Dromey: Seven Government Get Britain Building launches have proved to be false dawns. Housing starts are down; homelessness is up; we have a mortgage market where people cannot get mortgages and rents are at a record high in the private rented sector. Does the Chancellor now accept that his decision to cut £4 billion-worth of investment was directly responsible for a 60% collapse in affordable house building? Will he now accept personal responsibility as the Chancellor of the Exchequer presiding over the biggest housing crisis in a generation?

George Osborne: House building was at an all-time low under the Labour Government—the lowest, I think, since the 1920s or 1930s. That is what had happened. Of course, things such as problems in the mortgage market were created by the banking crisis and the financial crisis. The banking crisis happened, by the way, when the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) was the City Minister. The funding for lending scheme is bringing mortgage costs down. The first buy scheme helps with shared equity, and the new buy scheme is helping people who cannot afford their first deposit, so we have those schemes out there, helping to repair problems in the financial markets. We are also committing money for additional affordable homes and we are providing guarantees to social landlords to build not just social homes, but homes for the private rented sector. We are dealing with the problems that occurred when the hon. Gentleman’s party was in office.

Stephen Metcalfe: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement, and I would particularly like to welcome the
	fund that will allow good schools to expand. Can he tell us when that might be in place, as the need is more pressing in some areas than in others, particularly around Basildon, where I would like to see the Lee Chapel primary school expand rapidly?

George Osborne: My hon. Friend makes a powerful case for Basildon, its schools and the particular school he mentioned. I will make sure that the Education Secretary hears the argument he makes. The money is available over the next two years.

Gemma Doyle: What will the Chancellor do to make sure that any Scottish Barnett consequentials from capital projects will be used to create jobs in Scotland, and not in China, which is what we saw the Scottish Government doing in awarding the contract for the Forth road bridge?

George Osborne: There will be additional capital spending. We have a devolved arrangement so it will be up to the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament to make a decision about how that money is spent. Of course, I expect Scottish Members here and Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members of the Scottish Parliament to hold the Scottish National party to account for the decisions it takes. More broadly, its independence programme would be a disaster for the Scottish economy.

George Freeman: Families and businesses in my constituency will welcome the news that £76 billion-worth of reductions in the cost of government, £18 billion-worth of reductions in welfare and £33 billion-worth of interest payments have allowed a Conservative Chancellor to lower taxes for the poorest and create a million new jobs. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that plan B is nothing more than a plan for borrowing and bankruptcy?

George Osborne: I am not sure that I can add much to that, except to say that I completely agree with my hon. Friend.

Ronnie Campbell: I have heard mention of at least a dozen Tory MPs in marginal seats getting a lot of money, but I have not heard much about the north-east getting money. I hope the Chancellor will not come and give us what he gave us last year, when he said that the port of Blyth was going to get an enterprise zone. We have 14 hectares. We have put a fence around it and made it into an allotment garden.

George Osborne: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his assiduous campaign for an enterprise zone in the port of Blyth. That enterprise zone is going ahead. As a Conservative Chancellor, may I also congratulate him on his campaign, along with many other hon. Members, for the dualling of the A1 all the way to Newcastle? Since I know that Blyth is north of Newcastle, I point out that, as I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), we are looking at further dualling to the Scottish border, but that is for another time.

Gordon Birtwistle: I congratulate the Chancellor on his decision on capital allowances, which I think will be a major boost for industry. Over the next 20 years, the aerospace industry across the world will invest between $6 trillion and $7 trillion on new aeroplanes. This country is the second biggest aerospace provider in the world, and this is twice the capacity we have now. Does the Chancellor agree that we must continue to invest in advanced manufacturing, particularly in aerospace, and that we should carry on trying to get young people involved?

George Osborne: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I congratulate him on the work he has done to make the case for capital allowances to help small and medium-sized businesses in Lancashire and in his Burnley constituency. He wrote a report, which I thought was compelling, and he put in the work of listening to his local manufacturers. He is completely right about manufacturing. I have been to some very high-tech manufacturing businesses in north Lancashire, which make components for some of the most up-to-date jet engines in the world. We are investing more money in the aerospace supply chain, and as I announced today, we are investing more in the advanced manufacturing supply chain. With the help of my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary, we are determined to make sure that Britain’s premier place in aerospace is maintained.

Ian Austin: If we look at the small print, we see that the only reason why borrowing has fallen this year is that the Government have added in the proceeds of the 4G mobile spectrum auction into this year’s figures, even though Government delays have meant that the auction has not yet taken place. If those figures were not added in for this year and we did not have this £3.5 billion pencilled in for the receipt from that, borrowing would be £2 billion higher this year than it was last year. Is that not the case?

George Osborne: The deficit and borrowing are falling any way the public figures are presented. We have done this in a completely transparent way. As I was explaining to the shadow Chancellor, the 4G money has been used to refurbish, for example, the further education college in Morley.

Jane Ellison: I warmly welcome the announcement of the Government’s support for the Northern line extension in the important Nine Elms-Vauxhall development. Does he agree that it is not just the 16,000 new homes and 25,000 new jobs that are important, but the message that a high-profile scheme such as this sends out to the world beyond the UK—that Britain and London are open for business—is also crucial?

George Osborne: The Battersea power plant development is, as I said in my statement, as big as the Olympic park—it is an enormous project, and I am very pleased that we have our Malaysian partners investing in the site. We have done our bit by providing this loan and this guarantee that will help to pay for the Northern line extension into Battersea power station. I commend my hon. Friend—I have been to the site with her—and I know what an enormous boost this will be, not just for her constituents but for the whole of London and, indeed, Britain.

Mark Durkan: Of course I welcome the Chancellor’s confirmation of ultra-fast broadband for Digital Derry, and the announcements on the carbon price floor and the fuel duty, but I am afraid that on personal taxation and benefits, the Chancellor is becoming something of a fiscal drag artist. On another tax front, I welcome the fact that he has cut through all the Treasury excusery against the general anti-abuse rule, but surely it needs to be more robust. If it is going to be a meaningful priority of the G8 presidency to co-ordinate members against corporate tax conjuring, the Chancellor surely has to start by revisiting the controlled foreign company rules that he made in the last Budget.

George Osborne: First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support of our decision to provide ultra-fast broadband to Derry/Londonderry, and I congratulate the city on a very good bid, which competed against other bids across the UK. He is also right to say that we are helping the Northern Ireland energy sector with decisions on the carbon price floor, which I did not have space in my statement to announce, but they are in the book. I am glad that he acknowledges those aspects. More broadly, Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK will benefit when we help people who work hard and want to get on with the personal allowance and when we help small businesses and motorists with the fuel duty. We are doing all these things and are making sure that they apply to Northern Ireland as well.

Brooks Newmark: Given that income tax has been cut for 25 million people, the income tax of people on the minimum wage has been cut in half and up to 2 million people have been taken out of tax altogether, does my right hon. Friend agree that our Government, and indeed our party, are on the side of ordinary working men and women?

George Osborne: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We have made difficult decisions on welfare uprating—we have asked the rich to pay more—but, as I have said, we have done that not only to help to deal with the deficit, but to help people who work hard and want to get on. That is precisely what we have done today

Helen Goodman: Further to the answer that the Chancellor gave my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), will he admit that in 2010 he cut public spending in the north-east by £2.8 billion, that last year he gave us 0.03% of the capital spend, and that this year he gave us 3%? Far from being fair, does that not mark a transfer of resources from the north to the south?

George Osborne: Under this Government, the level of capital spending is higher than the level in the plans that we inherited from the last Labour Government—which the hon. Lady supported at the time of the last Labour Budget—and, indeed, we have added to it today. Under this Government, the level of public investment as a proportion of GDP is higher than the average level under the Labour Government. As for investment in the north, there is the investment in the A1, the investment in High Speed 2, and the investment in the northern rail hub. There is a whole load of investment in the transport infrastructure of the north and the north-east because we are helping this
	country, which suffered so much under the Labour Government, when the gap between the north and the south grew.

Bob Blackman: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on announcing the abolition of Labour’s expensive private finance initiative schemes, but may I ask him what the impact will be on schemes on which we have already agreed and which are awaiting approval, such as the one involving a replacement for the Royal National Orthopaedic hospital in my constituency?

George Osborne: We do not intend to disrupt existing PFI schemes—although, sadly, there are not many left, because so many dried up at the very end of the last Labour Government’s time in office owing to financing problems—and the new PFI 2 will help to restart private and public investment. The big difference is that from now on, instead of the public sector bearing the risk and getting none of the reward—as has happened, for example, in the case of a hospital project not in my hon. Friend’s part of London but in south-east London—it will share in the upside as well.

Luciana Berger: Can the Chancellor confirm that the capital spending that he has announced for free schools amounts to less than a third of the cuts in the capital budgets for schools and colleges?

George Osborne: Capital spending is higher than the level in the plans that we inherited from the last Labour Government. That is simply the case. We inherited big planned cuts in capital spending, and we have increased capital spending, off those plans. We have that new money for schools, and I would hope that the hon. Lady would welcome that.

Gavin Williamson: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that someone earning £10,000 who would have paid £1,180 in national insurance contributions and income tax in 2010-11 will pay £380 in 2013-14? Does that not show that Government Members support people and families on low incomes, unlike the Labour party?

George Osborne: My hon. Friend speaks very powerfully about the way in which we have helped people. We have helped basic rate taxpayers by increasing the personal allowance, we have taken 2 million of the lowest paid out of work, and we have halved the income tax bill for people on the minimum wage; but, above all, we have helped working families throughout the country with a further income tax cut today.

Caroline Lucas: One glimmer of good news was the announcement of ultra-fast broadband for Brighton, and I thank the Chancellor for that, but there is plenty of bad news about the dash for gas. Not only will it bust our climate targets, but it simply is not cheap. Deutsche Bank, the CBI and the International Energy Agency all say that gas prices will rise. This is the Government who say that they like to make evidence-based policy, so why will the Chancellor not look at the evidence in this instance?

George Osborne: I am glad that the hon. Lady welcomes the announcement of ultra-fast broadband for Brighton and Hove. As for energy, we are increasing investment in renewable energy. We have set a levy control framework for the period up to 2020, which is a longer time frame than has been set by any Government before us, and that will increase the investment in renewable energy that the hon. Lady wants to see. However, I also think that it is fair for Britain to have a mix of energy sources, and for gas to be part of that. Gas is lower in carbon than the coal-fired generation that is being phased out. We want a proper mix, and we want to do what we can to keep bills down while at the same time allowing investment in new energy infrastructure.

David Rutley: It is often said that when a challenge must be faced, two Eds are better than one. Does the Chancellor believe that that applies to economic policy?

George Osborne: I am not sure that they will be such close friends today after the shadow Chancellor’s response to my statement. However, we do not need to guess what the economic policy of the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor might be, because we have lived through it. They caused the biggest boom and the biggest bust in our history, despite advising the then Chancellor at the time to say that he would abolish boom and bust.

Kevin Brennan: In the interests of transparency, will the Chancellor confirm that the only reason he was able to say in his statement that borrowing would be less this year was the inclusion of the proceeds from the 4G sale, which has not actually happened yet?

George Osborne: As I have said, we have set out the public finance numbers applying to all the different scenarios, and, as I have said, we are spending the 4G money on, for example, the further education college in Morley. We are also using it to increase the annual investment allowance from the beginning of January.

Stephen Gilbert: Hundreds of thousands of firemen, police officers, nurses and council workers throughout the country will be very pleased to learn that my right hon. Friend has ruled out the introduction of regional pay, but teachers may have some concerns. Can my right hon. Friend assure us that none of them will lose out in respect of any move towards greater incentivisation in the profession?

George Osborne: We asked the pay review bodies to make reports, and we have adopted their recommendations. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education will set out more details of the way in which we will implement the recommendations of the teachers’ pay review body, but it does include the uprating of the minimum and maximum bands in line with general public pay policy.

Louise Ellman: The announcement of additional investment in transport is very welcome, but can the Chancellor assure us that it really is additional spending, and that it will not be paid for by the postponing of existing programmes now that the size of the Department for Transport has been so drastically reduced?

George Osborne: I can confirm that it is additional capital spending, and that it is not a substitute for any other capital spending on transport. Moreover—I did not mention this in my statement, but it is in the document—we are providing money for road schemes that are in the pipeline, to ensure that the development of new road schemes is not squeezed out by the capital that we are giving to existing ones.

Philip Hollobone: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that since he became Chancellor of the Exchequer, he has abolished Labour’s fuel duty escalator, cut the rate of fuel duty and frozen it at the new levels? As a result, from January the typical motorist in Kettering and throughout the country will pay £5 less every time he fills up at the pump.

George Osborne: I suppose we are used to opportunism from the Opposition, but we see no greater opportunism from them than that relating to fuel duty. The fuel duty rises that we have cancelled were not part of some mythical plan; they were voted for by Labour Members of Parliament at the time of the last Labour Budget—including, of course, by the shadow Chancellor. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: fuel is 10p per litre cheaper than it would have been if we had adopted the shadow Chancellor’s Budget plans.

Andrew Love: Let me return the House to an answer that the Chancellor gave about PFI. He slipped the new PFI 2 scheme into his statement today, but is it not being criticised on the grounds that it is not good value for money—that value for money will, indeed, fall—that it will cost the taxpayer more, and that most of the projects will still be off the Government’s balance sheet? What has changed?

George Osborne: I do not accept that characterisation at all. I talked about this matter in the statement, and, of course, I expect people to look in detail at the document we have published. There are two substantial changes. First, there will be public sector investment alongside private investment. The public sector will have a share in the equity and will have representation on the boards of these projects to make sure both that we share in the upside and that we know what is going on with these projects, instead of the absolute scandal that we saw under the last Government when on many occasions the public sector was ripped off. The hospitals in south-east London are living with the consequences of that.
	Secondly, there will be more on balance sheet in future, but there will also be off balance sheet, and we are going to have new off balance sheet totals and controlled totals so that there is more transparency. I will say more in the Budget about how we are going to account for off balance sheet.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. The statement covers matters that are already the subject of much public interest and comment, so I am keen to accommodate as many colleagues as possible. If I am to do so within any reasonable time frame, however, some pithiness from Back and Front Benches alike is required, and I am sure we will be led in our mission by Mr Andrew Bridgen.

Andrew Bridgen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Opposition plans for £200 billion of extra spending, extra borrowing and extra debt would damage this country’s economic credibility, and ultimately lead to interest rates rising for families and businesses in my constituency and across the whole country?

George Osborne: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is precisely what the Labour party offers: more borrowing, more debt, and a return to the mess it left this country in. People are not going to trust Labour with the public finances again, and they are particularly not going to trust the shadow Chancellor again.

Ian Lavery: In my constituency, 15.9% of young people aged between 18 and 24 are unemployed. That is twice the national average. What is in the autumn statement for them?

George Osborne: First, of course any young person who cannot get a job is a matter of regret, but youth unemployment has fallen this year. Our welfare to work schemes are helping get people back to work, and our work experience scheme in particular is doing a great job of getting people into work, so I would ask those young people to go to their jobcentre and see the schemes that are available. As I have said, 1.2 million jobs have been created in the private sector over the past couple of years, in what are very difficult circumstances. I hope that, with the measures we announced today, business will be able to create some more jobs.

Robert Halfon: On behalf of my colleagues and FairFuelUK, I thank my right hon. Friend for putting fuel back into the fuel tanks of white-van Conservatives across the country. Can he confirm that the scrapping of the 3p petrol rise not only for three months, but permanently, as he has said today, will mean the average Harlow motorist will be better off by £80 to £100 next year?

George Osborne: As I said in my statement, I congratulate my hon. Friend on speaking for motorists and families across the country against Labour’s fuel tax rises. He speaks for Harlow man and woman, and I am glad that, as a result of his campaigning and the difficult decisions we have taken elsewhere to control public spending, we have been able to cancel altogether that fuel duty rise due for January.

Paul Goggins: When the Chancellor describes those on benefits as people who sleep while others work, he does himself no credit whatever. Of course the cheats have to be dealt with, but most of these people are decent people—pensioners and parents who are struggling to make ends meet. Given that they already face cuts to their benefits and public services, how can it be right that they are now to have a real-terms cut to their poverty-level incomes while millionaires keep their handouts?

George Osborne: Out-of-work benefits have increased by 20% over the last five years, while average earnings in the public and private sectors have gone up by 10%. We have to make difficult decisions, and I think it is a fair decision to uprate working age benefits by 1%. We are
	also uprating the higher-rate tax threshold by 1%. This is a fair decision. If the right hon. Gentleman can recommend other ways of taking substantial sums out of the Government’s bill, let him come forward with them—and I still have not heard from a single Labour MP whether they will be voting for or against the welfare uprating Bill.

Peter Bone: One way the Chancellor could produce a lot of money at no expense to the British economy is, of course, by not going ahead with overseas aid at 0.7% of gross national income. How much additional borrowing will be required to meet that commitment?

George Osborne: My hon. Friend and I have a genuine disagreement on this matter. I think it is right for this country to honour its obligations to the world’s poorest. I think we should be proud to be a part of, and support, what will be the first Government in British history to reach the 0.7% target. I have had to rebase the aid budget because of the GDP forecast, as I do not want to spend more than 0.7% of national income. As a result, the Department for International Development has had one of the biggest adjustments to its budget of all Departments.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: Last year the Chancellor announced more money for infrastructure, but, as we know, not one single project has been delivered. Why should we believe the additional funding announced today will be any more productive?

George Osborne: That claim is simply not true. Road projects are being completed across the country and infrastructure is being deployed. The science infrastructure, for example, has now all been completed, and I have announced £600 million more for science. If the hon. Lady is saying that it takes a long time to get some infrastructure projects going because of the constraints in the planning system, however, she is right. That is why we have also taken steps to streamline the process we inherited so it is easier to get things built by tackling the bureaucracy that has to be dealt with, while at the same time allowing those who have objections to have them fairly heard.

Mark Menzies: I am pleased the Chancellor has today announced that there will be a shale gas regulator office. Can he assure me that its work will be transparent and will lead to my constituents getting the assurances they need that this important process will be safe?

George Osborne: First, let me say that I completely understand why my hon. Friend wants to make sure, on behalf of his constituents in Lancashire, that any development of shale gas or unconventional gas that is undertaken is environmentally safe and safe for local communities. We are absolutely determined to ensure that that is the case. That is why we stopped the exploration that was taking place until we were sure that it was safe, and a decision on that is still pending from the Energy Secretary. As has been demonstrated in the United States, however, local communities often benefit from
	the jobs and investment shale gas projects bring. My hon. Friend is right that this new single office must make sure that regulation is straightforward and simple while also being rigorous so that local communities are protected.

Chi Onwurah: The north-east is the only UK region with an export surplus, which shows that where there is demand, we rise to the challenge, but it is also the region with the highest unemployment rate, so why is the Chancellor attacking the unemployed as workshy scroungers living a life on benefits and doing nothing to get demand and jobs back in the economy?

George Osborne: I have never used that language at all. What I have said is that we have got to make savings in the benefits bill and, in my view, it is very important that we have fairness in our society. One element of fairness is that people on out-of-work benefits should not be earning more on average than the family that goes to work, which is why we have introduced the benefits cap. I could not quite understand what the shadow Chancellor was saying about Labour’s position on the benefits cap. He certainly led all Labour Members through the Division Lobby time and again against the benefits cap, but I think they will want to check exactly what he said in reply to my statement.

Steven Baker: This morning City A.M. reported that just 6% of the public appreciate that this Government have been forced to put up the national debt. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the deficit is coming down, and will he take steps to ensure that discussion in the media is based on the facts, not the incoherence and cruel fairy tales of the Labour party?

George Osborne: I will certainly work with my hon. Friend and publications such as City A. M. to make sure that happens. The deficit is how much is added to the debt each year, and we are getting the deficit down. We inherited the highest budget deficit in the world, and we have been able to reduce it by 25%.

Yvonne Fovargue: The Treasury will benefit by £1.1 billion per annum from the high earners’ pension pot cut and by £3.7 billion per annum from benefit claimants. Is this not just an inconvenience for the rich but a catastrophe for the poor?

George Osborne: As I say, we have had to make difficult decisions. Are Labour Members against the uprating of welfare benefits by 1%? We will find out when the Bill is before Parliament—at the moment, they are not telling us how they would vote on that measure. We have had to make difficult decisions, but let me repeat what I have said at this Dispatch Box: the rich are paying more as a share of our income tax in every single year of this Government than they did in any one year of the 13 years of the Labour Government. The pensions tax measure is a difficult measure, but we felt it was necessary to take it. We have also increased the amount of money we are getting from dealing with tax avoidance and we have taken decisions such as putting stamp duty up to 7%. We have done all those things, not one of which was done by the Labour party.

Christopher Pincher: Half a dozen European Ministers, from within the eurozone and outside it, have stated in terms that they do not believe that growth should be used as a pretext for running up more and more debt. Does my right hon. Friend agree that those Ministers show a degree of foresight and common sense that is sadly lacking in the shadow Chancellor?

George Osborne: That powerful point was made by the Finance Ministers of not only Germany and Sweden but some of the Baltic states. One of the tragedies of British economic management under the last Government is that we went into the crisis with a huge structural deficit. The International Monetary Fund has now assessed that Britain carried the largest structural deficit of any major western economy going into the banking crash, yet extraordinarily the shadow Chancellor goes around saying that there was no structural deficit. If we had managed our public finances like Germany, for example, we would be in better shape.

Jonathan Edwards: The Treasury-sponsored Silk commission recently recommended the devolution of minor taxes to the Welsh Government and a tax-sharing arrangement for income tax, partially to incentivise the Welsh Government to develop the Welsh economy. When will the Treasury publish a timetable for implementation, as well as the bilateral agreement on borrowing powers?

George Osborne: We welcome the work that the Silk commission has done. It asks some big questions about the devolution of fiscal powers to Wales. The Treasury and the Wales Office here in London are sitting down with the Welsh Assembly Government to work through the details of the proposals. I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands and accepts that we have taken a big step forward with the Silk commission and now have a text we can work on. How much we can implement will, of course, be a matter for democratic decisions in this House and in the Welsh Assembly in Cardiff.

Jackie Doyle-Price: Businesses across south Essex will welcome the commitment that my right hon. Friend has made to improving the road infrastructure around the M25, which is its biggest constraint on growth and job creation. That illustrates the Government’s real commitment to creating more jobs in this vibrant sector. Does he agree that the Exchequer will benefit hugely from the increased tax receipts that will be generated by those increases in jobs and growth?

George Osborne: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the campaign she has fought on behalf of her constituents, and on behalf of jobs in Thurrock and elsewhere. The junction 30 upgrade will help to secure the largest port investment in the whole of northern Europe—it is a fantastic thing for the area, it will create many jobs and she has played a real part in helping to deliver it.

William Bain: With the average wage 7.9% lower in real terms than it was when this Chancellor took office, does he not share the sense of real disappointment across the country that he did not announce any new measures on child care, the cost of which is rising at twice the rate of inflation?
	Does that not constitute a significant barrier to work for as many as 1 million women and mean that for many households work does not pay?

George Osborne: We have announced new entitlements on child care, such as the entitlement for two-year-olds from more disadvantaged families to nursery places, which did not exist under the previous Government. We are also working on new proposals on child care, and I hope in the first half of next year to bring those forward.

Alec Shelbrooke: May I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcement on personal allowances and say how proud I am to be part of a Government who have halved the income tax on the lowest earners in our society? Which does he think represents the true one-nation politician: those who in difficult times have halved the income tax on the lowest earners or those who during the boom times doubled it?

George Osborne: I suspect Benjamin Disraeli was considerably better at the Dispatch Box than the shadow Chancellor, too. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that we have taken decisions to help the working poor, through taking them out of income tax and through the personal allowance increase for 24 million people. Whether Conservative or Liberal Democrat in this Government, we can be absolutely proud of the decision we have taken on the personal allowance in these very difficult times.

Andy Sawford: Did the Chancellor hear the very loud message coming from the people of Corby and east Northamptonshire that they believe his economic policies are failing? Does he recognise that they will have heard his statement today and believed it to be complacent and wrong? Can he specifically confirm for the people of Corby and east Northamptonshire the real picture on borrowing? If we take out the £3.5 billion that is counted in for the 4G auction, borrowing will actually be higher this year than last. Will he give us the real cash figures?

George Osborne: First, may I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his election in Corby? We were talking earlier about construction projects that had not been started. I saw for myself on an enjoyable visit to Corby, which was ultimately unsuccessful in terms of the by-election, the Corby link road which is being built—I hope he would welcome it. As I say, we have set out the public finance numbers, and we have taken the decision to use the spectrum money to help with further education and to fund the annual investment allowance, which starts in January next year—in this financial year.

Charlie Elphicke: What action is my right hon. Friend taking to close the tax gap and enable British business to complete on a level tax playing field, after the serious failure to modernise or enforce our business tax system over the past decade by the previous Labour Government?

George Osborne: My hon. Friend has been a powerful advocate for a more competitive business tax system in this country, and we have reduced again the headline
	rate of corporation tax. That makes it even more of an advantage for companies to headquarter and pay their taxes here, and it is part of what we are doing to win the global race. I congratulate him on the advice and support he gives in this area.

Angus MacNeil: It is good to hear a UK Chancellor say that the private finance initiative is discredited—10 to 15 years after the Scottish National party did so. It is good, too, to hear of his belated conversion to some capital expenditure for shovel-ready projects—we wasted a couple of years by not listening to the SNP. We have had lost years of ever-growing debt paying for failure rather than growth, and that is projected to last until 2018. I wonder whether the Chancellor will introduce some competition to his job and perhaps return economic powers to Scotland, so that the Scottish Government can show him how it is done and get us out of the mess a little quicker.

George Osborne: The steps we have taken today, for example, to provide additional capital spending in Scotland, show the strengths of Scotland’s being part of a United Kingdom that is able to borrow money on world markets at exceptionally low rates. The SNP has still not answered the most basic questions about currency, about monetary policy management, and about the cost of debt and the like. Until the SNP can answer those fundamental questions about economic management, I do not think anyone is going to trust it with taking over control of that entire economic management through independence.

Julian Huppert: One thing I was delighted not to hear in the statement was the Prime Minister’s bizarre idea of scrapping housing benefits for the under-25s. Will the Chancellor tell the House whether it was omitted because he now realises that it would have been a mistake, that not all young people have loving, stable families to live with, and that they need and deserve our support—or was it just that we in the Liberal Democrats would not let him do it?

George Osborne: I think that is a slightly sour note from my Liberal Democrat colleagues. We have put together an autumn statement as a coalition Government and we have supported the priorities we both share, which include the personal allowance increase, dealing with fuel duty and investment allowances for businesses. We have collectively taken the difficult decision on welfare uprating; it is the best way, at present, to try to make savings in the welfare bill.

Gloria De Piero: The regional growth fund has not delivered a penny in Ashfield, and local business leaders across the east midlands are saying that the scheme just is not working. So what changes will the Chancellor make to ensure that my constituents benefit from the regional growth fund?

George Osborne: I am very happy to look into the specific situation for businesses in Ashfield if the hon. Lady wants to write to me—or we can meet and I will see what I can do to help. Businesses in Ashfield and elsewhere across the east midlands are eligible for the regional growth fund. We have put more money into the
	fund and made substantial transport improvements in the east and west midlands, which I hope will also benefit businesses in her constituency.

Alun Cairns: I warmly welcome the Chancellor’s statement and pay particular tribute to the increase in the pension draw-down limit and the increase in the ISA allowance. Will the Chancellor tell the House when he expects them to be implemented?

George Osborne: The ISA uprating takes place as normal. The draw-down limit will be in the Finance Bill, which we will introduce next week.

Lucy Powell: Is this Chancellor not presiding over a series of false economies? There is a long list, but let me draw his attention to one of them. Recent analysis has shown that the level of his draconian and unfair cuts to Manchester’s local government budget is the same as the increase to the benefits bill in Manchester since the election. Would it not be better if he invested in our future rather than us all paying the price for his failure?

George Osborne: I welcome the hon. Lady to the House of Commons and congratulate her on her by-election victory—[ Interruption. ] I did not find time to visit Manchester Central during the by-election. We are providing a great deal of investment in Manchester. We have the new enterprise zone and we are working with Manchester city council on the northern hub, which will have an enormous impact—in a good sense—on Manchester. We have listened to and worked with the local authority on that. As someone who represents many of the people who go to work in her constituency, I think that over the past couple of years, in working with the local authorities, we have done a great deal to improve Manchester’s prospects.

Mark Pawsey: The Chancellor has set out clearly how, in order to avoid the next generation having to pay for this generation, the Government are entirely right to continue to get the deficit down. May I welcome his support for wealth-creating private business and particularly the relief on business rates for new commercial property, which will both stimulate the construction sector and improve the availability of premises for growing businesses?

George Osborne: In my statement, I had to choose just a couple of hon. Members who have brought that issue to my attention, but I should put it on record that my hon. Friend was one of those who came to see me to campaign for action on empty property rate relief to mitigate the damage that it has done to some of our cities and towns since its introduction by the previous Labour Government. The 18-month grace period will help the construction of new commercial premises, and I congratulate him on the work he has done on behalf of his constituents to bring that about.

Toby Perkins: The Chancellor has taken on a ghastly, ghostly, deathly pallor that suggests he knows that he has been rumbled. The money from the 4G mobile auction has not come in yet. When it comes in, he can spend it on whatever he likes, but he cannot offset it against borrowing before it has come in. Why does he not come clean and admit that borrowing has gone up and the rest of it is just a con?

George Osborne: I think we have roughly the same pallor, from looking at the hon. Gentleman. We have been completely transparent. We have published the OBR forecasts. They are independent and people will look at them and draw their own conclusion, which is that under Labour borrowing went up and up whereas under this Government the deficit has come down.

Robin Walker: The claimant count in Worcester today is 500 lower than it was in 2010, when the city had a Labour MP, and youth unemployment is 150 lower. In that context, may I welcome the Chancellor’s early response to the Heseltine review? Extra money for LEPs, the regional growth fund, the increase in capital allowance and investment in infrastructure should mean that that good progress can continue.

George Osborne: I am delighted that there has been that good news in my hon. Friend’s constituency and I hope that with the new investment allowance for businesses in his area there will be more jobs. He is right to say that the Heseltine review also asks big questions of us as a Parliament about how we spend money locally and whether we should create a single pot for which LEPs could make bids. I have announced that we want to proceed in that direction and we will have much more to say about it when we have our spending review.

Ann McKechin: One in 10 people of working age in Scotland is underemployed. Does the Chancellor consider that that figure will increase or decrease in the next three years?

George Osborne: Of course our ambition is for employment to increase. That is why we have made further changes to make our businesses more competitive, to help working people and to create a welfare system that encourages those who are in work. I hope she will support that.

Anne-Marie Morris: I congratulate the Chancellor on the good news in his statement for micro-businesses and particularly on what he has done with fuel duty and extending the small business rate tax relief. That is wonderful, but I have a particular concern about rural communities. In the detail, has he considered any further rural rebate for fuel duty in addition to the freeze he has already introduced?

George Osborne: I am not sure that this is necessarily the answer my hon. Friend wants, but unfortunately the European Union constrains the rural fuel rebates we can give to very remote island areas. That is why we have been able to introduce rebates in some of the Scottish islands and in the Isles of Scilly, but not in more remote parts of rural England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We are pressing the Commission to see whether we can extend the definition of remote rural areas so that remote parts of the south-west, for example, can benefit.

Richard Burden: In the interests of transparency when considering available public finances in the west midlands, is the Chancellor aware of the recent BBC investigation into the fate of £107 billion of assets of the former Advantage West Midlands? I know that he was not a fan of regional
	development agencies, but does he agree that that money should be available to people in the west midlands and that local taxpayers should not be forced to buy those assets twice? Will he insist on transparency to help west midlands MPs try to get to the bottom of what has gone on?

George Osborne: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and I am happy to respond in writing on his specific point about Advantage West Midlands. I will get back to him with the details.

Andrew Jones: The average weekly gross pay in my constituency is £490, which is less than the UK average. The huge increase in personal allowance benefits my constituents significantly as well as people across the country, so may I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his work to take so many people out of tax and urge him to continue his efforts to make work pay?

George Osborne: I will certainly continue those efforts to ensure that work pays and that we have a welfare system that encourages work, in which it always pays to work and in which working people in Harrogate, Knaresborough and elsewhere are rewarded for being in work. The personal allowance increase and the cut in fuel duty plans will help the people whom my hon. Friend so ably represents in this Parliament.

Lilian Greenwood: In cutting the income tax of those earning more than £1 million a year while cutting the incomes of those people in my constituency who do the right thing by getting up and going out everyday to try to find a job, is the Chancellor not protecting the richest and asking the most vulnerable to pay the most?

George Osborne: The richest have paid more income tax in every single year under this Government than in any one of the 13 years for which there was a Labour Government and the shadow Chancellor was the country’s chief economic adviser. If the hon. Lady has a problem with the reduction in the 50p rate to a 45p rate, perhaps she can tell me—her colleagues on the Front Bench certainly will not—whether Labour would reverse that policy if it won the next election.

James Morris: I welcome the Chancellor’s announcement on capital spending, particularly the new PF2—private finance 2—scheme he announced today. Does he agree that that scheme would be ideal for the new hospital in Sandwell, which has been identified by the Treasury today as a priority project for that scheme and will greatly benefit people in Sandwell and across the black country?

George Osborne: We have identified the hospital in Sandwell as a prime candidate for the new PF2. I know that it will help improve facilities for the many people my hon. Friend represents. It is a very good project and I hope that we will be able to proceed with it.

Julie Hilling: The Chancellor did not mention the other banks he has created—food banks. Is he not deeply ashamed that under his policies working people are dependent on food handouts to feed themselves and their families?

George Osborne: As I have said, we have increased the personal allowance to increase the income going to working families. Of course, these are difficult economic times. We are having to take difficult decisions but they are decisions that support those who want to work hard and get on.

Graham Evans: Hard-working strivers in Weaver Vale will welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcement that their personal tax allowance will increase to £9,440. Can he remind the House of the 10p tax fiasco that hit the poorest hardest? Does he agree that it is those on the Government Benches who always make it pay to work?

George Osborne: My hon. Friend puts it extremely powerfully on behalf of his Cheshire constituents. We remember the income tax decisions of the previous Government—the abolition of the 10p tax rate that hit the poorest. For 13 years, as I said, the rich were paying less in income tax than they are paying in any one year of this Government.

Stephen Doughty: May I take the Chancellor back to his statement in 2010, when he said that he wanted to see the richest paying most and the vulnerable protected? To press the point raised by many of my hon. Friends, why is he persisting with the tax cut for millionaires when thousands of people across Wales are increasingly relying on food banks, such as the one I visited this weekend?

George Osborne: We have had to take difficult decisions. We have asked the rich to pay more—new stamp duty rates. We have had to take difficult decisions today on pensions tax relief for the largest pension pots. We have done all those things. We have also had to take difficult decisions on welfare. If the hon. Gentleman objects to those things, perhaps he can tell us whether he will vote against the welfare uprating Bill.

Marcus Jones: In Nuneaton since May 2010 unemployment is down, youth unemployment is down, employment is up and we have seen a 22% increase in business start-ups in the past quarter alone. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we cannot be complacent and we need to do more, but that the autumn statement today will show that we are on the right track?

George Osborne: My hon. Friend is right that we are on the right track. We are making progress. To turn back would be a complete disaster. I congratulate him on speaking on behalf of the businesses that he represents. He has asked me what we can do on capital allowances for plant and machinery and on business rates for small businesses. I hope he can see in the announcements that we made today that we have been listening to him and to the people in his constituency.

Debbie Abrahams: Can the Chancellor confirm not only that growth has been downgraded yet again and the welfare bill is rising, but that child poverty and the number of working families living in poverty is increasing? This is happening at the same time as millionaires are getting their tax cuts. Is this fair? Are we really all in it together?

George Osborne: We inherited a desperately difficult economic situation, where the economy had contracted by 6%. The hon. Lady talks about GDP forecasts. The Labour Government presided over a 6% contraction in the economy. We are dealing with those problems. As I say, she and her colleagues would have more force if they could answer two questions. Will they reverse the 50p tax cut? They will not say that. Will they vote against the welfare uprating Bill? Once they give us answers to those two questions, perhaps we will start listening to what they have to say.

Margot James: I warmly welcome the 25% increase in the budget for UK Trade and Industry and the £1.5 billion uplift for export finance facilities, which is much needed by businesses trying to fill orders from abroad. My right hon. Friend also commended the Heseltine review and said that he would respond more fully in the new year. When he does that, may I draw his attention to Lord Heseltine’s recommendations that we increase tactics to improve foreign direct investment by targeting the leading multinational investors more fully and more widely throughout Government?

George Osborne: I know my hon. Friend speaks with great knowledge on these subjects and she chairs the all-party group on trade and investment. We have provided a 25% increase in UKTI’s budget. We are seeking to strengthen the capacity of overseas chambers. It is not just about exports from this country; it is also about attracting investment into this country, and we want Britain to remain the No. 1 destination for foreign direct investment in Europe.

Chris Williamson: The reality of this Chancellor’s period in office is that poverty is rising, growth is falling and debt is increasing. Why does he not just admit that his ideologically-driven tea party experiment has been a complete and utter failure?

George Osborne: I suggest the hon. Gentleman wakes up and smells the coffee of the situation that we inherited. We inherited a country that had just been through the biggest recession and banking crisis in modern history. We have dealt with the question about Britain’s credibility and its ability to pay its way in the world. The deficit has gone down, 1.2 million jobs have been created and he should give us some credit for cleaning up the mess that his party created.

Andrew Percy: The people of east Yorkshire and north Lincolnshire will welcome the decision to scrap the 13p per gallon planned rise in fuel. On the £120 million for flood defences, will my right hon. Friend ensure that rural communities can benefit from that, as well as the cities?

George Osborne: I can absolutely confirm that. We are doing everything we can to support businesses in my hon. Friend’s area and to make sure that all parts of the country benefit from the infrastructure investment that we are making. Having been up to his part of the world, I know that we are making those investments and they are bringing real benefits to the area that he represents.

Diana Johnson: Can the Chancellor explain to the 1,200 people in and around Hull who are facing private sector job losses
	announced in the preceding four weeks exactly what is in the autumn statement in terms of jobs and growth for them?

George Osborne: Of course we regret any decision made by any company to reduce jobs, but we are creating jobs in the economy. In Humberside we have committed to new enterprise zones. We have reduced the tolls on the Humber bridge. We have introduced today new tax allowances from January next year to help small businesses in the hon. Lady’s area to invest. These will all help create jobs, and I hope the people she represents will also welcome the increase in the personal allowance, which will see a reduction in their income tax bill, and the decision not to go ahead with the Labour party’s 3p fuel duty rise.

Richard Graham: My constituents in Gloucester will appreciate the fact that the Chancellor’s statement increases take-home pay for all workers, gets us off the fuel duty escalator, clamps down on multinational tax avoidance and strongly supports investment in manufacturing, which is vital for growth and jobs in our city and county. Can my right hon. Friend say whether his announcement on funding and reforms for more houses includes the Gloucester proposal for social housing regeneration, which was well received by the Homes and Communities Agency and the Department for Communities and Local Government?

George Osborne: I will get back to my hon. Friend about the specific point about the bid for new housing in Gloucester. More broadly, we are investing more capital in housing development. We are also standing alongside families trying to buy their first home with our Firstbuy shared equity scheme, and we are also providing guarantees to registered social landlords not only to build social housing, but to build housing for the private rented sector. So in all sorts of ways we are helping the people of Gloucester, and I will look specifically at what more we can do to help.

Tom Blenkinsop: The corporation tax take, VAT take, income tax take and growth are all lower than the OBR predicted in March. The Chancellor is forecast to accrue an increase in national debt in five years greater than Labour accrued in 13 years. Moreover, from now till 2013 the International Labour Organisation unemployment rate increases by 0.2%, as is stated on page 86, table B.1, so how are more people predicted to get jobs when the OBR says completely the opposite?

George Osborne: I would advise the hon. Gentleman to look at that table on employment. It shows employment going up by 1 million.

Martin Vickers: Along with the initiatives that the Chancellor mentioned a few moments ago to boost the Humberside economy, I particularly welcome confirmation that the A160 upgrade into Immingham docks is going ahead. It provides access to the enterprise zone that he mentioned. I note that there is an additional £60 million available to enterprise zones. Will he look sympathetically on applications from the Humber enterprise zone?

George Osborne: I will certainly look at the application if one is put forward by the Humber enterprise zone. I know that this benefits people across not only east
	Yorkshire, but north Lincolnshire, which my hon. Friend represents, and I know that the enterprise zones have some exciting ideas. There is, as I say, additional money in the Book which I did not mention in my statement, but it is there for additional infrastructure into the enterprise zones, and I will take a close look at the bid that he makes on behalf of his constituents in relation to the local enterprise zone.

Sheila Gilmore: Job creation is vital in order to reduce public spending and increase the tax take. The words the Chancellor used in his statement were very interesting. He said specifically that when counting his 1 million private sector jobs he started from the beginning of 2010. Half of those jobs were created in the first year of that period and arose from the Labour Government’s financial stimulus, so the rate of growth has in fact been decreasing, not increasing. Does he not agree?

George Osborne: First, unemployment had gone up under the Labour Government and they, like all Labour Governments in history, left office with unemployment higher than when they came into office. Secondly, if the hon. Lady looks at the employment forecasts she will see that, as I was saying to her hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop), 1 million jobs are forecast to be created over the coming period. As I have said, we are in a tough economic situation—I am not trying to disguise that from the House today—but I think that the decisions we have taken to help businesses and working people will be warmly welcomed.

Guy Opperman: The improvements to the A1 and the freezing of fuel duty, which was raised 10 times under the previous Labour Government, are warmly welcomed by Government Members. However, may I urge the Chancellor to consider the call of the Chair of the Treasury Committee for local community banking to kick-start lending to small and medium-sized enterprises and local banking in local areas?

George Osborne: I welcome what my hon. Friend says about the dualling of the A1 up to Newcastle—I hope that in future we can do that as far as the Scottish border—and his comment on fuel duty. He has spoken to me personally about what more we can do to get community banking. There are still many issues to deal with in our banking system. We have to make it more competitive and encourage more entrants, and community banks can be part of the solution.

Naomi Long: Bombardier recently secured the largest order in its history, with the result that its site in my constituency is now secure for the future, which is a welcome investment and also secures the local supply chain, so I welcome the Chancellor’s intention to support the aerospace industry as well as his announcements on fuel duty, which will have a direct impact on those businesses. Another constraint on economic growth in Northern Ireland is air passenger duty, as I have said frequently. Will the Chancellor at least commit to conducting a proper study of the impact of APD on growth in business and tourism, so that an informed decision on the matter can be taken?

George Osborne: I, too, welcome the investment that Bombardier has made in Belfast and hope that some of my announcements today on help for the aerospace industry, particularly the supply chain for advanced manufacturing, will benefit the hon. Lady’s constituents. On APD, we acted swiftly to deal with the specific issue of the transatlantic flight from Belfast to the United States, and I am glad that we were able, with the Northern Ireland Executive, to come to a satisfactory arrangement on that. More broadly, the point she makes about APD has been made by others. We have had to make some difficult decisions, and sticking with the APD rates we inherited from the previous Labour Government was one of them, although we were able, in the very early years of this Government, to do something to ameliorate that by delaying one of the increases.

Julian Sturdy: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement and thank him for the consideration he has given to our report on empty property rates. The move to give new build commercial properties an exemption from paying empty property rates will be a welcome boost to the economy and will be much welcomed in the industry, but I ask him to keep the wider issue of empty property rates on existing units under consideration.

George Osborne: As I said in my statement, the report produced by my hon. Friend and some of his colleagues showed powerfully the impact that the empty property rates that the previous Government introduced have had, hitting development in our towns and cities. It is an expensive measure to get rid of, which is why we have been unable to get rid of it all today, but we have listened to him and his colleagues. There was the idea of providing a grace period for new commercial development, and we are now introducing that 18-month grace period. I congratulate him on making the case for it so powerfully.

Mr Speaker: I call Mr Dan Byles.

Dan Byles: Thank you, Mr Speaker—I am now in a calm frame of mind. The average working wage in my constituency of North Warwickshire and Bedworth is less than the national average wage. What does the Chancellor suggest I tell my constituents when they ask me, in bewilderment, how the Labour party can vote against a welfare cap that will prevent people on benefits taking home a larger disposable income than my constituents who are in work?

George Osborne: I think that my hon. Friend’s constituents and many people in the country will be completely bewildered that Labour opposes a cap on benefits that simply means that people who are out of work will not get more than the average family gets from being in work. It means that in two and a half years’ time or thereabouts, his constituents will have a choice between continuing to return my hon. Friend to Parliament to ensure that their money is well spent and the unlimited benefits that his Labour opponent will be offering.

Mr Speaker: I thank the Chancellor and all 90 Back Benchers who questioned him. We are blessed.

Internships (Advertising and Regulation)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Hazel Blears: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the advertising of long-term unpaid internships; to regulate conditions of employment for paid internships; and for connected purposes.
	More than 1 million young people in our country are desperately looking for work, seeking that elusive first step on the career ladder that they hope will lead to a better future. In the current economic climate, it is all too easy for unscrupulous employers to exploit the hopes and dreams of young people by offering long-term, unpaid internships that require them to work for free.
	Let us take Stacy as an example. She was offered an internship with a financial services company in central London. Even though it was unpaid, she, like thousands of other young people, thought that it would lead to a future career. She worked for four months without pay and ended up with over £5,000 in credit card and payday loan debts just so she could afford the travel from her home into the city. She was forced to leave the company when she had no more money. Far from thanking her for her contribution, the company was outraged that she had left and gave her a poor reference.
	Long-term, unpaid internships are a modern-day scandal, and they are rife in the very areas where so many young people are desperate to get a foothold. The worst offenders are employers in media, fashion, finance and, until recently—I am ashamed to say—in politics. Part of the reason why unpaid internships are so unfair is that they are disproportionately located in London, one of the most expensive cities in the world to live in. That immediately freezes out large sections of the country, and I know that very few people from Salford could afford to relocate to London to work full time without getting paid.
	The National Union of Journalists, in its submission to the Low Pay Commission, called unpaid internships
	“the scourge of the industry”,
	with the problem being particularly bad on magazines. I commend the NUJ for bringing legal action in the employment tribunal to obtain backdated national minimum wage payments for unpaid interns. Alan Milburn’s report on fair access to professional careers, which was published in May this year, identified journalism as
	“one of the most socially exclusive of professions”
	and noted that over half of senior journalists are now educated privately. The report said that
	“all too often, unpaid internships are a key entry route into journalism and the media industry more generally.”
	He found:
	“Unpaid internships clearly disadvantage those from less affluent backgrounds who cannot afford to work for free for any length of time. They are a barrier to fair access and indeed, to better social mobility”.
	Of course, there are good employers in all those sectors who do pay their interns, such as the magazines Cosmopolitan and Elle, but too many persist in taking advantage of young people who are desperate to work. The problem is also widespread in the fashion industry. Carmela spent five months working for a fashion house, sewing dresses that would sell for over £500 each. She
	was paid nothing at all for her work. She, too, was forced to give up the internship because she simply could not afford to work for free. I cannot claim the following phrase as my own, but it is one of the best I have heard about the fashion industry. It was from a young woman who worked long hours for no pay and for months on end. She said:
	“The Devil wears Prada, and the Devil pays nada.”
	All of us in this House know that unpaid internships have been offered on a regular basis by all political parties, taking advantage of the drive and commitment of young people who want to work here at Westminster and are desperate to get a foot in the door. The reality is that only those who can afford to work for free and who have housing in London can take up those opportunities, which effectively excludes 95% of young people—they come from all our constituencies up and down the country—from ever having that chance to get involved in politics.
	With the support of all three party leaders and incredible support from you, Mr Speaker, I have, together with the hon. Members for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) and for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw), tried to address that in Parliament by creating the Speaker’s parliamentary placements scheme. Our programme, which is run in partnership with the brilliant Social Mobility Foundation, gives people from disadvantaged backgrounds the opportunity to come here and work. Every one of them is paid more than the minimum wage and more than the living wage. They are given some support with housing and provided with a structured scheme. They work for MPs for four days a week, and on a Friday they have a personal development programme that is helping them to realise their skills and talents. It is a good start, but much more needs to be done. I am pleased to say that with the brilliant work being carried out by Gus Baker and his colleagues at Interns Aware, Interns Anonymous and Internocracy, as well as the National Union of Students, we now have a mass of young people who are an unstoppable force, and I think we really will start to get change.
	The Bill proposes that advertising for unpaid internships should be unlawful. It seems like a small measure, but I believe that it would make a big difference. If people are required to attend work for set hours and carry out specific duties, they are legally a worker under the national minimum wage legislation and entitled to be paid as such. This is the clear legal advice of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills’ own lawyers. It is therefore completely nonsensical that it remains lawful for employers to advertise positions which are in themselves unlawful. The Bill would send a very clear message to employers that such adverts are unlawful, and it would accelerate the cultural change we need so that all employers adopt the standards of the best by paying their interns at least the national minimum wage.
	Some people will say that such a measure might squeeze out the essential work experience placements that we all want to encourage so that young people get a taste of different kinds of work to help them decide on their future careers. Not at all: there is a world of difference between a four-week work experience placement, which can be tremendously valuable, and an advert which, I am ashamed to say, a Member of Parliament issued recently for a 12-month constituency case worker—unpaid!
	In France, work experience is limited to eight weeks, after which there is a trigger whereby a person automatically becomes an intern and is paid accordingly. It would be very helpful if we could consider a similar model in this country. To me, eight weeks seems a little too long, but perhaps after four or six weeks there should be an automatic trigger so that people start to get paid properly as interns.
	Of course, many companies do offer brilliant paid internship programmes, including Ernst and Young, BP, law firm Clifford Chance, and CH2M Hill, which built the Olympic Park and is now setting up a paid internship scheme to attract young people into engineering. Small campaign charities such as People and Plants are also able to pay their interns. We should celebrate them all and try to bring everyone else up to their standards.
	Volunteering is important, but we should distinguish it from unpaid internships. Volunteers give up their own time and do so on their own terms—they are not required to carry out set duties at set hours—but obviously, volunteering is a great way to get experience and contribute to the local community.
	Concern has been expressed that making internships paid would drive unpaid internships underground or, worse still, stifle opportunities. However, we have to ask ourselves this: are we comfortable with opportunities that mean that people do not get paid for their work, and that are restricted to those who can afford to work for free? I personally am not. I believe that unpaid internships are often exploitative, and are wrong. By outlawing the advertising of unpaid internships, the Government would send a clear message that unpaid internships shut down more opportunities for people than they open up, that the practice is counter-productive to social mobility, and that the principle of asking people to live and work for free is wrong.
	This issue is affecting many people’s lives. I will leave the House with a final story about John. John joined French Connection’s e-commerce team as an unpaid intern. After a couple of weeks, there were changes in the workplace and John was given more responsibilities. He was asked if he wanted to take this work on, and he said no, but was still given it. It was terribly confusing for someone who had no experience in a mainstream, paid role. Not only did John feel out of his depth but he felt, and clearly was, exploited. John says that he felt he was drafted in to do a job because there was no one else to do it and he was saving the company money. For his sake, and for the sake of thousands of young people who are in similar circumstances today, whose hopes and dreams have often been dashed because they cannot do an unpaid internship, we must act quickly to ensure that they are treated with respect and given a decent start to their working lives.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Hazel Blears, Barbara Keeley, David Miliband, Mr Iain Wright, Ms Gisela Stuart, Meg Hillier, Fiona Mactaggart, Julie Elliott, Dr Julian Huppert, Mike Crockart and Eric Ollerenshaw present the Bill.
	Hazel Blears accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 1 February 2013 and to be printed (Bill 102).

Police (Complaints and Conduct) Bill (Allocation of Time)

Damian Green: I beg to move,
	That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Police (Complaints and Conduct) Bill—
	Timetable
	1.–(1) Proceedings on Second Reading, in Committee, on consideration and on Third Reading shall be completed at this day’s sitting.
	(2) Proceedings on Second Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) four hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.
	(3) Proceedings in Committee, on consideration and on Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) six hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.
	Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put
	2. When the Bill has been read a second time—
	(a) it shall, despite Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills not subject to a programme order), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put;
	(b) proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed while the Question is put, in accordance with paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 52 (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills), on any financial resolution relating to the Bill;
	(c) on the conclusion of proceedings on any financial resolution relating to the Bill, proceedings on the Bill shall be resumed and the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
	3.–(1) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee, the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
	(2) If the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
	4. For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1, the Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others) in the same order as they would fall to be put if this Order did not apply—
	(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
	(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
	(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
	(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.
	5. On an Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
	6. If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph 4(c) on successive amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Chairman or Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.
	7. If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph 4(d) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chairman shall instead put a single Question in relation to those provisions, except that the Question shall be put separately on any Clause of or Schedule to the Bill which a Minister of the Crown has signified an intention to leave out.
	Consideration of Lords Amendments
	8.–(1) Any Lords Amendments to the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
	(2) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (1) shall thereupon be resumed.
	9.–(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 8.
	(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question already proposed from the Chair.
	(3) If that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment the Speaker shall then put forthwith—
	(a) a single Question on any further Amendments to the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown, and
	(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House agrees or disagrees to the Lords Amendment or (as the case may be) to the Lords Amendment as amended.
	(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith—
	(a) a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment, and
	(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House agrees or disagrees to the Lords Amendment or (as the case may be) to the Lords Amendment as amended.
	(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House disagrees to a Lords Amendment.
	(6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question that this House agrees to all the remaining Lords Amendments.
	(7) As soon as the House has—
	(a) agreed or disagreed to a Lords Amendment; or
	(b) disposed of an Amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to,
	the Speaker shall put forthwith a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown and relevant to the Lords Amendment.
	Subsequent stages
	10.–(1) Any further Message from the Lords on the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
	(2) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (1) shall thereupon be resumed.
	11.–(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 10.
	(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair.
	(3) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.
	(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on or relevant to any of the remaining items in the Lords Message.
	(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question that this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.
	Reasons Committee
	12.–(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chair.
	(2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
	(3) Proceedings in the Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion 30 minutes after their commencement.
	(4) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with sub-paragraph (3), the Chair shall—
	(a) first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair, and
	(b) then put forthwith successively Questions on motions which may be made by a Minister of the Crown for assigning a Reason for disagreeing with the Lords in any of their Amendments.
	(5) The proceedings of the Committee shall be reported without any further Question being put.
	Miscellaneous
	13.–Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply so far as necessary for the purposes of this Order.
	14.–(1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
	(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.
	15. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies.
	16.–(1) No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken or to recommit the Bill.
	(2) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
	17.–(1) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown.
	(2) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
	18. The Speaker may not arrange for a debate to be held in accordance with Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates) on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day before the conclusion of any proceedings to which this Order applies.
	19.–(1) This paragraph applies if the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the conclusion of any proceedings to which this Order applies.
	(2) No notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
	20. Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
	21.–(1) Any private business which has been set down for consideration at 7.00 pm, 4.00 pm or 2.00 pm (as the case may be) on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day.
	(2) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before the moment of interruption, for a period equal to the time elapsing between 7.00 pm, 4.00 pm or 2.00 pm (as the case may be) and the conclusion of those proceedings.
	It may assist the House if I say a few words about the allocation of time motion without, of course, debating the substance of the Bill. Clearly, the motion goes to the heart of our case for a fast-track Bill.
	As hon. Members will recall, in the debate on 22 October my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave a commitment to ensure that the Independent Police Complaints Commission had the powers that it needs to undertake its investigations into Hillsborough thoroughly and exhaustively. The bereaved families and the survivors have waited 23 years for the truth; they should not have to wait years more for justice. The IPCC needs to get on with these investigations as fast as possible, and to do that it needs these additional powers by early in the new year. I fully recognise that today’s timetable is a tight one. None the less, given the very specific issues that the House is being asked to consider, I am satisfied that the House, and in due course the other place, will have sufficient time to scrutinise the Bill properly.

Peter Bone: It is unusual to put a Bill through this place in a day, and the procedure should be used only rarely. Given the lack of Government business in the past few weeks, I wonder why we did not have the Second Reading debate sooner so that we could proceed with the later stages today. What is the reason for the delay between the statement and getting to this point?

Damian Green: The statement was made four or five weeks ago. The IPCC had to look at the matter, and we have had discussions with it about the extra powers that it thought it needed, which the Bill very narrowly addresses. I share what I divine to be my hon. Friend’s instincts about emergency fast-track legislation. When it is needed, as it occasionally is, it should be drafted as narrowly as possible. As for the timetable, we have moved as fast as possible, consonant with consulting the many people involved, inside this House and outside, so that we could get to the point where today we can have a Second Reading debate. We will have four hours to consider the motion itself and for Second Reading. The motion then provides for a further two hours for Committee stage, to take place on the Floor of the House, and for the remaining stages. We therefore have a total of up to six hours to consider the Bill today. I welcome the support from those on the Opposition Front Bench for expediting the Bill; similarly, I welcome the support of the Home Affairs Committee, as set out in its report, which was published this morning. I hope that the House as a whole will understand the need for fast-tracking the Bill and will support the motion.

David Hanson: I am grateful to the Minister for outlining the motion. My right hon. Friends the Members for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), for Leigh (Andy Burnham), for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) and I have had discussions outside the Chamber with the Minister about the Bill’s contents, and we support the motion. We want to get the Bill on to the statute book as quickly as possible, and the Opposition will not oppose the motion.

Peter Bone: I have no intention of opposing the motion, but the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), who spoke on behalf of the Opposition, has made my point for me somewhat. Obviously, discussions between the two Whips Offices have led to this decision. It may well be that this is such an important issue that everything has to be done in one day. However, as a general rule, although we can allocate four hours for Second Reading and two hours for Committee, one of the reasons we have safeguards in our Standing Orders is that arguments developed on Second Reading may be reflected on and amendments can then be tabled for the Committee stage. I am not saying that this is not one of those Bills that need to be rushed through in a day—I do not know enough about it, although it certainly relates to an important issue.

George Howarth: The hon. Gentleman is, in general terms, making a good point, but he needs to reflect on the fact that this is a short Bill and, as the Minister has said, that it is focused in its intent.

Peter Bone: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I am sure that he is correct. What I am taking this small opportunity to do is to encourage the Government not to follow this practice with other Bills. A House business committee would save us from this problem, because all decisions would then be made transparently rather than as a result of discussions behind the scenes, which is obviously what happened in this case.

Keith Vaz: I, too, rise to support the Government’s motion. The Minister consulted me and the Home Affairs Committee, which, for the convenience of the House, published a report this morning—it is available from the Vote Office—that deals with the Bill and goes a little wider, because we took evidence from the Hillsborough families as well. We have made a number of recommendations that go slightly beyond the Bill itself and hope that the Government will take them into consideration.
	It is important that we get on with this. One of the features of the evidence given by Lord Falconer and the families’ representatives was their desire to get a move on after their 23-year campaign. I thank the Minister for the courtesy with which he has conducted the negotiations with the Committee, for consulting us and for giving us an opportunity to submit our views, which, as I have said, are available from the Vote Office.

Stephen Mosley: It is also fair to say that the people who have been involved with Hillsborough have been aware of this Bill and have had the opportunity to make suggestions. An amendment has been tabled for the Committee stage as a result of the all-party group on the Hillsborough disaster having time to discuss the issue.

Keith Vaz: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I think we will have plenty of time to discuss this three-clause Bill. Obviously, as the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) has said—he has developed a great expertise in House matters—we do not want today’s process to be the norm. We want it to be exceptional, the Government have said that it is exceptional, and the families, the Opposition and the Home Affairs Committee believe that it is exceptional. I think it is pretty rare to get such agreement, but we agree on the Bill and hope that it will go through quickly.

Damian Green: I am grateful for the remarks that have been made. If it is of any reassurance to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), I share his instincts, but I think that everyone understands the importance of speeding up this Bill and the fact that, within the constraints of a tight timetable, the Government have done their best to consult everyone who should be consulted, both inside and outside the House.
	Question put and agreed to.

Police (Complaints and Conduct) Bill

[Relevant document: The Tenth Report from the Home Affairs Committee on Powers to investigate the Hillsborough disaster: interim Report on the Independent Police Complaints Commission, HC 793.]
	Second  Reading

Damian Green: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	The events of 15 April 1989 were a tragedy. Ninety-six innocent men, women, and children lost their lives. More than 700 people were injured, many seriously. The impact of those events on all those who watched the tragedy unfold, desperate to help, on the survivors, and on the families and friends of the 96 victims, is felt to this day and must never be forgotten.
	We have today an opportunity to address what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister called the “double injustice” that has been suffered, first through the tragedy itself, and then through 23 years of lies and obstruction. That is why we have brought forward this fast-track legislation.
	With the publication of the report of the Hillsborough independent panel on 12 September, the truth about the events of that day is finally known. I pay tribute again to the Right Rev. James Jones, the Bishop of Liverpool, and all the panel members for their dedicated and tireless work in producing the report. It has drawn a line under the lies, rumour, innuendo and conjecture that have surrounded the disaster for the past 23 years.
	I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) for his contribution in getting us to this stage. I also pay tribute to the hon. Members for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram), for Halton (Derek Twigg) and for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), who have worked tirelessly to get to the truth. The whole House is grateful to them. I am also grateful to the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), and the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), for the constructive discussions that they have had with me and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, which have enabled us to introduce the Bill in a spirit of co-operation across the whole House.
	I also pay tribute, not least, to the families of the victims. Without their unwavering commitment, we would simply not have reached this important point in the search for justice. I believe that without their dedication, there would have been no independent panel, no report into the Hillsborough disaster, no parliamentary debates and no possibility of exposing the truth and obtaining justice.

Keith Vaz: May I again put on the record the unanimous support of the Select Committee for the Bill? Aspects of our 10th report, which we published this morning, go beyond the scope of clauses 1 and 2. Will the Minister assure the House that he will look at those other points, for example on the creation of a lead investigator, the need for co-ordination by the
	Home Secretary and the need for her to publish a timetable? Even though those points are not relevant to the Bill, they are very relevant to the future conduct of the investigation.

Damian Green: I am grateful to the Select Committee for producing the report for this debate and for taking parts of it out of its important wider investigation into the Independent Police Complaints Commission. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that all the points that he and the Select Committee have made are under consideration. Clearly, it is in everyone’s interest that the various investigations proceed as fast as possible, consonant with the fact that many of them are being carried out by bodies that are rightly independent of Government.

Jim Cunningham: Will the Minister say what the attitude is of the Police Federation and the Association of Chief Police Officers to the Bill?

Damian Green: The Police Federation and the superintendents have written to express their reservations and I have written back to them. I obviously meet the Police Federation and the supers regularly. I am meeting the Police Federation next week and this matter will be on the agenda. I have not had a formal exchange with ACPO, so it would be unfair for me to express its collective view.
	The findings of the independent panel’s report are deeply distressing. The failure of the authorities to protect the fans, the attempts to blame them and the doubt cast on the original coroner’s inquest are particularly troubling findings. It should not have taken 23 years to get to this point, but finally the report gets us to the stage of knowing the truth—a truth that is now accepted by all. The report exposes many attempts that were made by the authorities—those charged with protecting the public and with uncovering the truth of the events—to change official records, obscure the truth and paint a different picture of what happened.
	The truth is both shocking and essential, but it is not the end. As the Bishop of Liverpool has said, we now need to move from truth to justice. It is that move that is at the centre of the Bill. As the Home Secretary set out to the House in the debate on 22 October, the Independent Police Complaints Commission has announced an investigation into the panel’s findings. That is an important step on the path to achieving justice for the victims of the disaster.
	The IPCC will investigate the conduct of the officers at Hillsborough on that day, and those who were involved in the subsequent investigations. That means that it will investigate both misconduct and criminality, not only of any officers who are still serving in any police force in the UK, but of any officers who have since retired. Normally, the IPCC would pursue retired officers only for matters relating to criminal behaviour. For criminal behaviour, the sanctions are clear: the officer, serving or retired, will face criminal charges. For misconduct matters, sanctions can bite only serving officers, so it is rare to undertake an investigation of retired officers for misconduct. However, in relation to Hillsborough, the IPCC has made it clear that it will investigate retired officers for both criminal behaviour and misconduct because the public interest is compelling.

Steve Rotheram: I welcome the Government’s proposals, but I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman, like me, is surprised that page 10 of the Bill research paper states that the IPCC cannot already compel serving police officers simply to attend an interview in connection with any ongoing investigation. Does he believe that there should be clear sanctions against those who refuse to do that?

Damian Green: The hon. Gentleman asked two questions. First, he asked whether I was surprised that the power did not already exist. To some extent, yes I am. Obviously, the IPCC was set up under the Police Reform Act 2002 and given powers then. Perhaps this is the first time that so much focus has been on it—indeed, it has caused the House to agree to emergency legislation to give the IPCC that particular power.
	Secondly, I know that sanctions are of particular concern. As has been said, we will debate the matter in detail on an amendment to the relevant clause in Committee later. However, I preview my thoughts on that by pointing out that clear sanctions will be available to chief constables and forces to apply to those who refuse to obey what will be an IPCC instruction, and later a requirement. They will be very powerful.

Julian Huppert: The Minister may recall that I wrote to him about retired officers, and I thank him for his response. Will he be clear about whether such former officers would be required to attend any sort of interview? My understanding of the Home Affairs Committee report is that the Bill does not provide for that, and that could hinder the investigation. Will he make it clear whether there is a way of ensuring that people are available to be interviewed?

Damian Green: The case is different for retired officers because they are essentially members of the public. The police cannot compel a member of the public to attend an interview as a witness. If the police feel that it is necessary to interview someone, they have to arrest them if they are unwilling to help voluntarily. It would be strange to give the IPCC powers that the police do not have. Having said that, my expectation is that—inevitably, in this case—there will be many retired officers, simply because of the length of time since Hillsborough, and that they may have useful evidence to give as witnesses. I hope and expect that many will wish to help.

Stephen Mosley: It is 23 years since Hillsborough and more than 20 years since most of the incidents that concern us occurred. Has the Minister any idea of how many officers from that time are still serving, and how many have retired or moved on?

Damian Green: The IPCC is still going through that information. The majority of officers may well have retired by now. This is a large undertaking and represents the biggest single investigation that the IPCC has ever done. It estimates that this will involve their investigating more than 2,400 officers. That is the overall quantum—the actual division is not yet clear. Obviously, many officers may have moved to other forces, and so on.

Steve Rotheram: If the right hon. Gentleman will not put sanctions in the Bill, as seems likely, what confidence
	does he have that police forces will take the necessary disciplinary action against serving officers who refuse to help the IPCC?

Damian Green: I have very great confidence in that. There are two points to make in response to the hon. Gentleman, the first of which is that similar sanctions under the conduct regulations are not in any other Bill, so it would be anomalous suddenly to pluck out the sanction for this offence and put it in legislation. Secondly, and more importantly in practical terms, given the enormous and understandable public interest in the matter, the relevant chief officers will be extremely keen to ensure that they use their powers to take sanctions—ultimately, officers who break the conduct regulations in that way can be dismissed. The conversations I have had with senior officers in recent days suggest that that is the case.
	I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) that the IPCC has said that the investigation will be the biggest it has ever undertaken. The Government recognise the additional burden that such a large investigation places on it. We have made it clear that we will ensure that the commission has both the powers and the resources it needs to conduct its investigations into Hillsborough. We take that commitment seriously, which is why we have introduced this fast-track Bill.

John Mann: The IPCC has accepted two separate complaints, which may or may not overlap. One is in relation to Orgreave in 1984, and the other is in relation to the mystery over the investigation into Norman Bettison for an alleged major theft in August 1987. How will the IPCC be able to look at those two investigations when it has such a heavy burden placed on it, particularly if it finds anything that in any way crosses over because of the individuals involved or anything else?

Damian Green: I should restrict my remarks to Hillsborough, which is the purpose of the Bill; it is deliberately narrowly drawn. It is for the IPCC to decide how to use its resources. The Bill gives a power to the IPCC to consider events previously investigated by its predecessor body, the Police Complaints Authority, but it is for the IPCC to decide whether exceptional circumstances obtain to allow it do so. It is for the IPCC to decide whether to accept individual complaints. On the hon. Gentleman’s other complaints, may I urge Members on both sides of the House not to indulge in debate and speculation about individuals? I would not want anything said on the Floor of the House to jeopardise any live investigations being conducted by either the IPCC or the police.
	Since the publication of the panel’s report, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I, and Home Office officials, have liaised closely with the IPCC, which has identified two additional powers it needs urgently in order to take forward its investigations into Hillsborough. Those powers are contained in the Bill.
	As many hon. Members will know, discussions with the IPCC regarding its powers have been taking place for some time. I am aware of the calls for wider reform of the IPCC and how police complaints are handled
	more generally. Let me be clear to the House that those discussions are still taking place. The Home Affairs Committee, to which I gave evidence last week, is coming to the end of an inquiry into the IPCC. Naturally, the Government will want to study the Committee’s conclusions and recommendations before coming to a final view on any wider reforms to the IPCC. If there are other gaps in the IPCC’s powers, we will plug them as soon as is practicable, but the Bill’s focus is on gaps in the commission’s powers that it has identified as preventing it from undertaking a thorough and exhaustive investigation in Hillsborough without delay.

Derek Twigg: One of the things that emerged clearly from the report was the role of South Yorkshire police federation in putting out the “alternative” view of Hillsborough. I suspect I know the answer, but I want to be clear for the record—that someone cannot argue they were acting in a representative capacity as a police federation representative in order to escape what is being sought under the Bill. In other words, the Bill’s provisions will apply to them even if they were acting as representatives of the police federation and its members, just as they would to police officers generally.

Damian Green: That is a question for the IPCC investigation; it is not for Ministers to act as judges or investigators. I know it is an important point, but it is better addressed to the IPCC.

Julian Huppert: The Minister says he is open to plugging gaps. He knows I have pressed him before about people occupying quasi-police roles. He wrote to me to say he is actively considering the issue. Will he indicate where that consideration has reached?

Damian Green: Short of reading again what I have just said, that is what we are doing. The Select Committee, of which he is a distinguished member, is conducting an investigation. It has not published its final report, but when it does so the Government will look at it and all the matters it raises seriously.

Luciana Berger: The Minister says that the IPCC has asked for two powers that are contained in the Bill. What conversations has he had with the IPCC since the Bill was published about anything that is missing? He says he has had conversations with chief officers, specifically on sanctions. What conversations has he had with the IPCC about sanctions?

Damian Green: I have had extensive conversations with the IPCC. I have seen its briefing to Members, which led to the all-party group amendment. I have specifically discussed sanctions with the IPCC. As I have said in more general terms, if there is a need to widen the IPCC’s powers the Government will look at it with an open mind and with a view to legislation, but it is sensible to await the Select Committee report before committing ourselves in any detail. It will be for the IPCC to investigate whether individuals involved on the day should face misconduct or criminal proceedings; we must ensure it has the powers it needs. The IPCC has been clear: that fully to investigate the terrible events of 15 April 1989 it needs to hear the testimony of officers involved on the day and in subsequent investigations.

Alison McGovern: I thank the Minister for the correspondence he gave the all-party group yesterday. He makes absolutely the right case on the powers the IPCC needs for retired officers. Does he agree that, even if there are substantial legislative issues with retired officers, there is an absolutely clear moral case that retired officers should co-operate with the IPCC?

Damian Green: Yes, absolutely. I agree unequivocally, and it is a widely held view in the police service as well. I know that the hon. Lady understands that retired police officers are just members of the public, however, and therefore that giving the IPCC powers that the police do not have to compel witnesses to appear would be anomalous and certainly not something we would want to do through emergency fast-track legislation. Nevertheless, she made the moral case very powerfully.
	The IPCC has existing powers to interview officers and former officers who are themselves the subject of an investigation for either a conduct or a criminal matter. The IPCC can already compel a suspect to attend an interview, but it needs to hear from officers not just when they themselves are the subject of the investigation. It also needs to obtain evidence through interviews from those who might have seen the events unfold, when they might have seen or heard of fellow officers amending statements and records—in other words, when they had witnessed key events in relation to Hillsborough.
	As I have said, the IPCC can compel officers who are themselves under investigation to attend for interview. Clause 1 extends this power so that serving police officers and police staff can be compelled to attend for interview as witnesses as part of any investigation managed or independently undertaken by the IPCC. The power will apply to officers in Home Office forces and other policing bodies, such as the British Transport police. I am clear that any serving officer who fails to comply with a request to attend such an interview should face disciplinary measures. I emphasise that point once again.
	That is consistent with the existing regime that applies when a person who is the subject of an investigation fails to attend for interview. For the sake of clarity, I will repeat that such disciplinary matters may have serious consequences, including— ultimately—dismissal. I have set out that the power granted through clause 1 applies to individuals still serving with the police. The IPCC will not be able to compel a retired officer to attend an interview as a witness through the use of this power.
	Several hon. members have asked why the provision should not apply to retired officers, but, as I said, they are in the same position as ordinary members of the public and so are no longer bound legally by the same responsibility as serving officers—although the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) made the point about moral responsibility. To grant the IPCC the power to require a retired officer to give evidence simply as a witness would provide the IPCC with greater powers over the public than those available to the police. I think the House would rightly be uncomfortable about that.
	Let me again be clear, however: that does not mean that the IPCC cannot or will not investigate retired officers for misconduct or criminality that they might have committed. The IPCC will do that. We are just not
	providing the IPCC with the power, at this stage, to compel such retired officers to attend an interview as a witness to events on the day or thereafter. Crucially, the IPCC has not asked for that power in relation to the Hillsborough investigation, so the House does not need to rush its consideration of the matter.
	I know that many concerns have been expressed in the House and outside that an officer who wants to avoid the repercussions of their actions can simply retire and avoid all sanction, but that is not the case. The IPCC can and will investigate any individual suspected of criminal behaviour. It has the powers it needs to pursue these individuals and bring them to book. For example, the IPCC already has the power to require an individual, serving or retired, who is suspected of misconduct or criminal behaviour to attend an interview. The IPCC can, in appropriate cases, refer a matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions where there is evidence of criminality in relation to Hillsborough.
	If an individual is subsequently convicted of a criminal offence, in connection with their service as a police officer, they could lose the majority of their pension. It will be for the relevant police and crime commissioner to apply for this sanction. That is in addition to any penalty ordered by a court. Let me be clear: charges can be brought regardless of the employment status of the individual concerned.

Steve Rotheram: Just for the record, will the Minister clarify something? Criminal behaviour could lead to someone who is serving or who is retired facing a reduction in their pension. What happens if somebody is found guilty not of criminal behaviour, but of wrongdoing? Does the same sanction still apply?

Damian Green: The sanctions apply if someone is convicted of a criminal offence—I think that is the point the hon. Gentleman wishes to be clarified. If someone has not been convicted of a criminal offence, matters affecting their pension would, not least, engage human rights legislation as well, so things would be much more difficult in those cases.

George Howarth: I understand the Minister’s point that if someone was guilty of a criminal offence, there would be consequences, but what if someone who was serving and was investigated at the time had been found guilty of not carrying out their duties in an appropriate manner? That would have been a disciplinary matter rather than a criminal matter. Is there any sanction that could apply in those circumstances?

Damian Green: I think we are getting into the realms of speculation about individuals. There is a clear distinction, which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will recognise, between criminality and pure misconduct. It is clearly difficult to take disciplinary action against someone who is no longer an employee. At the most serious end, many of the Hillsborough cases would potentially involve criminal sanctions, but too detailed speculation on these matters might be unhelpful in the long run, not least to the families and others seeking justice as well as truth.

Louise Ellman: Where there is a need to gather sufficient evidence to decide whether a retired individual should be the subject
	of an investigation for misconduct or criminality, does the Bill contain sufficient powers to enable that evidence to be gathered?

Damian Green: The IPCC already has considerable powers to gather evidence, and it is not the only body involved in these investigations. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is looking at whether to apply to reopen the inquest, so a coroner may be involved as well. There will therefore be thorough investigation, and I would be surprised and disappointed if any avenue of inquiry fell through the cracks. As much as can be done in the investigation is being done and will be done.
	The overall point I would like to reassure the House about is that where individuals are suspected of misconduct or criminality, the IPCC has the powers it needs, so clause 1 is solely about its powers relating to witnesses. The power is essential if the IPCC investigation is to maintain public confidence and show that it has left no stone unturned—precisely the point that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) made. Information from witnesses will ensure that the IPCC investigation has a broad and thorough evidence base.
	As we have discussed, the sanctions carry real weight for serving officers. It would not be appropriate to extend that to retired officers at this time. I should perhaps repeat that I fully expect the vast majority of retired officers called as witnesses to attend willingly. The importance of the matters being considered would cause any decent human being to provide whatever assistance they could. However, we want to ensure that the IPCC has the clear statutory basis to be able, independently and authoritatively, to require serving officers who may have useful information for the purposes of the investigation—because they witnessed events—to attend an interview. This power is needed urgently. The IPCC is currently scoping its investigation, but it wants to make rapid progress, and I know that many people inside and outside the House want that as well. It plans to start calling witnesses early in the new year, so this power needs to be available to it by then if the investigation is not to be held up.
	Clause 2 will allow the IPCC to investigate matters that were previously subject to investigation by its predecessor, the Police Complaints Authority. This power will be exercised only when the IPCC is satisfied that the exceptional circumstances of a case justify its use. That is a high threshold. The IPCC has made it clear to me that, without this power, certain key events of the Hillsborough disaster would be out of scope of its investigation, as they have previously been considered by the PCA. In particular, the PCA investigated the decisions to open exit gate C at the Leppings Lane end of the Hillsborough ground and not to close the tunnel. Without this additional power, those matters would be out of scope of the IPCC investigation, although it is clear that those two decisions were critical to the events of the day.
	So this power is needed, but it needs to be tightly drawn. We need to avoid the prospect of opening up all previous PCA investigations for review. That is why the power provides the IPCC with the discretion to reopen previously investigated cases when the matter meets the
	test of “exceptional circumstances”. We are confident that that terminology ensures that investigations relating to Hillsborough can be reopened, while also setting a high enough bar to prevent all PCA cases from being subject to another investigation.

Stephen Mosley: The IPCC states in its briefing note, to which the Minister has referred, that there should be powerful public interest involvement if it is to reopen a case. Does he agree that that should be the case?

Damian Green: I do. As I have said, it is for the IPCC to define “exceptional circumstances”, but clearly a powerful public interest would be one example. New evidence would potentially be another. The circumstances would be of that kind of order. In serious cases, a powerful public interest or the production of new evidence would enable the IPCC to say that the hurdle had been overcome.

Angela Smith: Does the Minister think that the Orgreave incident represents a case in which these powers might be useful?

Damian Green: It is for the IPCC to decide such questions. The I stands for “Independent”, so it is not for Ministers to stand here and tell the IPCC how to define its role or the powers that we give it. It is for us to give it the powers, but it must define how best to use them. So, if the hon. Lady will permit me, I will leave that to the IPCC to decide. It will decide such questions in that case and in any other, and it is right that the decision should sit with it.

Bill Esterson: I apologise for missing the start of the debate. The Minister has talked about reopening investigations that have already been looked into by the Police Complaints Authority. Given the number of officers who were persuaded to change their statements and the scale of the cover-up, does he envisage that those issues will be covered by this provision in the Bill?

Damian Green: The previous Government passed a perfectly sensible piece of legislation when setting up the IPCC to prevent it from becoming a body that would investigate every controversial police case that had been investigated by its predecessor body. The reason for including this provision in the Bill is that the IPCC has told the Government very firmly that it needs the power to investigate a case that has already been investigated by the PCA, for the reasons that I have given relating to what happened on that day, and that it wants the high hurdle of “exceptional circumstances” to be set. One element that would enable it to get over that high hurdle would be the arrival of significant new evidence in a public interest case. As the hon. Gentleman says, the fact that there is evidence of statements having been altered on an industrial scale certainly hits the target as far as new evidence is concerned.

John Mann: To clarify, if during the IPCC’s investigations into Hillsborough, it comes across other major events that might not be in the public domain at all yet might give some indication not of what happened at Hillsborough or how it happened, but of why certain things happened, will it be able to look into or pass on relevant information at a future stage? In other words, can the IPCC look at things that are not directly related to Hillsborough but
	that come out as reasons for actions that are, on the face of it, unrelated but could be worthy of investigation in themselves?

Damian Green: Again, it will be a matter for the IPCC to decide what to do with the evidence it finds. Inevitably, in this kind of investigation, the evidence it finds will be public. I think I can see where the hon. Gentleman is trying to go. As I say, the IPCC has considerable powers of investigation and it could make things public that might enable someone to make a complaint, at which point it would have to decide whether its powers were sufficient or whether its new powers conferred under this Bill could be triggered. The underlying point is that the IPCC is independent: it is for the IPCC to decide what best to do with the evidence it finds during the course of its investigations.
	The Bill is narrow in scope, but crucial to the process of achieving justice for the 96 individuals who died as a result of the Hillsborough disaster, for those who were injured and for the families and friends of all involved.

Steve Rotheram: I thank the Minister for his patience again, but I am certain that he must understand the nervousness on Merseyside when this particular issue goes through this House. I know, because I have spoken to him, that the Minister is fully aware of and appreciates the current situation of Anne Williams, whose online e-petition reached over 100,000 signatures some weeks ago. Will he assure us that none of the investigations that will be carried out through the additional powers of the Bill will in any way impact on the time scale of the new inquests? Will he say more about his latest expectations regarding the timing of the application to the High Court to quash the original unsound verdicts?

Damian Green: On the first point, I know that the IPCC is extremely aware of the desire for things not to appear to be unduly delayed. Indeed, that is one reason why we are here today—to put a Bill through all its stages in one day, which shows that the House and the Government are trying to speed the process up as much as we can.
	On the application to the High Court, I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is proceeding as fast as he can, and I think a decision will be made public very shortly. I can go no further than that, but the hon. Gentleman’s wider point is well made, and I absolutely take it. I am very conscious that people want to see that this process, having started after the report, is not unduly delayed at any stage. I am very keen, as I know are many other people who have been involved from the start, that that should happen.
	That explains why the House should not today consider the wider reform of the IPCC, although we will examine whether there are other gaps in its powers. We have asked it what tools it needs to progress its investigations into Hillsborough, and this short Bill will ensure that it has the two additional powers for which it asked. The Bill thus represents an important step on the road from truth to justice for Hillsborough. All who support that aim will, I hope, support this Bill. I commend it to the House.

Lindsay Hoyle: I must now announce the result of the deferred Division on the draft order amending schedule 1 to the Legal Aid,
	Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. The Ayes were 288 and the Noes were 213, so the Question was agreed to.
	I must also announce the result of the deferred Division on the draft Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) Regulations 2012. The Ayes were 287 and the Noes were 213, so the Question was agreed to.

David Hanson: Let me begin by thanking the Minister for the discussions in which he has engaged outside the Chamber with Opposition Front Benchers, namely my right hon. Friends the Members for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and for Leigh (Andy Burnham), and me. We have greatly appreciated those discussions, and, like the Minister and, I am sure, many other Members, we welcome the Bill.
	The events at Hillsborough 23 years ago were a tragedy of monumental proportions. The lack of justice for the families and friends of the 96 victims sits heavily on all Members of this place, and indeed on the great city of Liverpool, which I am proud to say is the city of my birth. Constituents of mine died at Hillsborough. I know of the problems that the families have experienced since then, and the pain that it has brought them. The campaign for justice has been long fought, over many years. I recall our debate early in 1998, to which many Members who are in the Chamber today contributed. We recognise and pay tribute to the campaign for justice and for the families, and today we will help it to proceed to a conclusion.
	Let me again place on record my sincere thanks to the Right Rev. James Jones and the Hillsborough panel, who have done such important work to enable us, by means of the Bill and other measures, to right some of the many wrongs that have been perpetrated over those 23 years. I pay particular tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh for leading that process in government, and for not abandoning it in opposition. I think it is telling that every Member representing the city of Liverpool was present for the Minister’s speech today, and that so many Members on both sides of the House representing the north-west and, indeed, other parts of the United Kingdom are present for the debate.

Stephen Mosley: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the cross-party nature of what has happened since 2010, when the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) took action to enable the independent panel to sit, has shown the House operating at its absolute best, and that more has been achieved for the victims of Hillsborough since then than was achieved in the preceding 20-odd years?

David Hanson: I hope it can be said that death does not bear a party banner, and that the tragedies faced by many of my constituents and those of other Members throughout the House have led us to take action that will achieve the justice that they seek, the justice that they want, and the justice for which they have fought in the face of the lies that have been perpetuated in the community around them for so many years.
	We should recognise that the Bill is one step—albeit a small step—towards our achieving justice for the 96 families, their friends, their relatives, and the many people who
	were injured on that day; but we should also recognise that that journey towards justice is far from over. As we have heard today, the Attorney-General is considering whether there should be a fresh inquest. We certainly want to see the verdicts of the original inquest crushed, and we want the Director of Public Prosecutions to review as a matter of urgency evidence relating to the important matters that occurred that day. The Independent Police Complaints Commission is, of course, already looking into the conduct of police officers.
	The Bill is part of the process of securing justice for the relatives, friends and families, but it is only part of that process. Justice will not be achieved until all the matters to which I have referred have been dealt with to the satisfaction of the families, in line with the Hillsborough panel’s recommendations.
	Based on the report, the IPCC wants to look into two potential criminal and misconduct issues. First, it wants to examine the conduct of the police on 15 April 1989, addressing the culpability of the individuals and organisations involved and the safety standards, planning and operational decisions of that day that led to the Hillsborough disaster. Secondly, an equally important, but perhaps even worse, series of incidents is being examined: the evidence suggesting a cover-up in the weeks, months and years after the disaster. Of the 164 statements taken by officers on that day, no fewer than 116 were changed in some way, shape or form. That is deceit on a huge scale and we need to get to the bottom of it for the sake not only of the integrity of the police, but of justice for the 96.
	I thank the Home Secretary for having listened to the concerns expressed by the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford about the powers available to the IPCC. It must have the tools it needs to carry out a thorough investigation into both allegations of criminality and misconduct and the events of the day. The families who have campaigned for that—as well as for the inquest, for the quashing of the verdicts and for the Director of Public Prosecutions to review the evidence—demand no less.
	My right hon. Friend called in October for the inquiry to have those powers, because she recognises that it must get to the bottom of why so many police statements were altered. Although the IPCC can pursue officers it believes have committed crimes, it does not at present have powers to compel serving or former officers to be interviewed as witnesses; nor can it compel civilians to give evidence. Those obstacles must be removed, and the Bill achieves that. What consultations did the Minister have with the families prior to the publication of the Bill, and does he intend to have further discussions with representatives of the families in the next few weeks?
	As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) has said, the Home Affairs Committee welcomes the Bill. It has also made some helpful comments, and I hope the Minister will reflect on them. It is clear that the IPCC does not have the powers it needs to meet the objectives it has set itself. Indeed, it has informed the Home Affairs Committee that
	“where police officers refuse to attend for interview, IPCC investigators can only seek the information they need through the submission of written questions to officers via their solicitors or other
	representatives. Not only can this seriously undermine public confidence in IPCC investigations, it can also impact on the overall effectiveness and timeliness of investigations.”
	Clause 1 will remedy that, and I welcome it.
	There is a separate issue. My right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary has rightly asked Lord Stevens to address in his independent review for our party whether there should be a new police standards body and to look at the role of the IPCC going forward. That is a debate for another day, but as the Minister has recognised, in the longer term we will need to put in place a strong body to provide the safeguards and standards required to hold the police to account. That will take time, however, and the friends and families of the victims and the communities of Merseyside, Liverpool, my area of north Wales and beyond demand that we have early action. That is why this Bill is before us today.

Steve Rotheram: On the need for urgency, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Bill does not inhibit our ability to establish a lead investigator to oversee the myriad current investigations, and that that might help Parliament to understand the need for urgency?

David Hanson: I am very much on the side of my hon. Friend, and I again want to pay tribute to him and to the impact he has made on these matters since his election in May 2010. He knows the community where he lives and which he represents. He knows that they want to see those matters dealt with urgently, as do all hon. Members; those of us who have bereaved relatives in our constituencies know what that means to them and how they want to see the main important matters that my hon. Friend has brought forward addressed.
	Clause 1 will amend the Police Reform Act 2002 to confer witness attendance powers on the Independent Police Complaints Commission. The way in which that will be done is set out in newly published regulations from the Minister, which will adopt a similar approach to that set out in the 2002 Act. Clause 2, on the application of part 2 of the 2002 Act, will deal with questions that the Minister has also mentioned. It will amend the legislation currently preventing the IPCC from investigating any matters previously considered by the Police Complaints Authority. Given that these issues occurred under the PCA’s jurisdiction, it is vital that that bit of the Bill is also put in place.
	Later on we will deal with an amendment, but it is important to refer now to the issue at the heart of it. I have pressed the Minister strongly, as have my right hon. Friends the Members for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford and for Leigh, on the issue of the sanctions in place should an officer fail to attend an interview. Such an officer would indeed be subject to misconduct proceedings, and the Minister has explained to me privately, and has explained to the House today, how he believes those will deal with that issue. I simply say to him that we will be maintaining a strong watching brief, because we may need to revisit the sanctions issue either in Committee or at a later date.
	The amendment tabled by the all-party group on the Hillsborough disaster, so ably chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), raises that issue. We will have the debate when we deal with the amendment, but it is important that those who refuse to address the needs of the IPCC—if there are
	such people, and there may not be—face some sanction. The Minister has made it clear to me that that will involve police misconduct proceedings, which could involve dismissal, loss of pension or other issues. The key question is this: is the sanction sufficient? We will test that at a later date.
	Discussions also have progressed with my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary and myself on the IPCC’s inability to compel retired officers to attend interviews. The Minister has agreed to look at this matter. He has given an explanation again as to why retired officers should not be eligible to be brought for interview; this was because of the difficulties of legislation and other related matters. In a letter that he sent the shadow Home Secretary on 22 November, which was copied to me, he said:
	“As I set out on Monday, we understand the calls to grant a power to compel retired officers to attend interviews, and” —
	this is important—
	“will consider these in slower time, but do not feel it is appropriate to grant such a wide-ranging power through fast track legislation.”
	Will the Minister indicate during this debate what exactly he means by “slower time”? I would like to know with whom he is discussing these issues, when he intends to report back to the House on them, and whether he will explore the issues that we have discussed in respect of human rights legislation and pension confiscation. Will he report back to the House after this fast-track legislation on those matters?
	A commitment made by the Minister today—even now, dare I say it—from across the Dispatch Box to report back to this House on those matters would be of great interest. It would be very much welcomed by Members of this House, who are concerned that officers involved in incidents at Hillsborough who have retired will not be subject to criminal proceedings because they are not involved in criminal activity but could give information that is beneficial to a range of other matters relating to the Hillsborough inquiry. I want to know from the Minister, now or later, what he means by “slower time”, because it is important. I would welcome reassurance that those powers are available and will be considered. I will not push him further than that today, but we will revisit the question in due course.
	I would also like the Minister to confirm my understanding of the situation with the IPCC’s oversight as it extends to private contractors that provide services to or on behalf of the police. The legislation is put in place for Hillsborough, but also for other events, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) mentioned, and for all time until it is changed by future legislation. Will the Minister confirm that police community support officers and those individuals who undertake private contracting for the police force will come under the auspices of the Bill? I know the answer to that question, but I want the Minister to put it on the record in the Chamber before the Bill is passed.
	I welcome the fact that the IPCC has suggested that it will be in a position to take witnesses early in the next year. All Members of this House who are involved, both those who represent the city of Sheffield—I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) in her place—and those who represent constituencies in the north-west would welcome an early conclusion. The Minister has been keen to say that the investigation will be independent,
	but I would welcome some indication of the time scale within which, once the Bill has been approved, he would expect the IPCC to conclude its consideration of these matters. If he cannot do that today and wants to give it further consideration outside the Chamber, I would welcome it if he could drop a note to Members who speak on the subject on Second Reading. An indication from the IPCC of its intended time scale would certainly be welcome.
	I genuinely support the Minister’s Bill, but I would also welcome his comments on correspondence that I have received in the last 24 to 36 hours from bodies representing the police that have considered the Bill post-publication. It worries me, so I ask the Minister to give some consideration to the points it raises. First, I have a letter from the Police Superintendents Association of England and Wales addressed to my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary and copied to me. It is from Chief Superintendent Derek Barnett, the president of the association, and the very first line states:
	“It is disappointing that the only notification…of this legislation was a telephone call from an official the day before the Bill was tabled.”
	He goes on to say that he shares
	“your commitment to ensuring that the Hillsborough case is fully and properly investigated in a manner that is both expeditious and thorough, and with the eventual outcome that the full circumstances of those terrible events are once and for all indentified and that justice can be seen to have been done.”
	The police superintendents support elements of the Bill, but I am slightly surprised that they were not consulted about it as a whole apart from by telephone on the day before it was tabled. Between now and the Bill’s consideration in the other place, will the Minister meet the superintendents or contact them and listen to the points they want to make? I support the Bill as it is, but the superintendents want to make some points about it and the lack of consultation is concerning. They will have a role to play on these matters in future and the Minister might find that they support him.
	I also have a similar letter from the Police Federation. It is from the deputy general secretary, Stephen Smith, who states on page 2:
	“I have to say that I am personally disappointed by the action taken in issuing the Bill, rather than consulting with the sub-committee in the first instance. I believe this course of action demeans the very important work that has been carried out over the last 7 years.”
	The sub-committee to which he refers is the Police Advisory Board for England and Wales sub-committee, which is a negotiating body on these matters.
	Whatever our view on a range of incidents, the police have an important say on this matter, and the fact that they have not been formally consulted is an oversight. Between now and Second Reading in another place, if the Bill progresses today, as I expect it to do, will the Minister make contact with the Police Federation to give the police an opportunity to have their say?
	My final point relates to the scope of the Bill. The Minister knows that he is the Policing Minister for England and Wales, and that potentially, as we discussed outside the Chamber, police officers who in 1989 worked for a force in England and Wales may now work for a force in Scotland or Northern Ireland, outside the Minister’s jurisdiction. We raised the matter in our informal discussions and I do not believe I have had a
	response from the Minister, unless I missed it. I would welcome an update on the progress that he has had with the devolved Administrations in Northern Ireland and Scotland on ensuring that the terms of the Bill would not encounter any difficulties from those Administrations. They are different Administrations and have different police forces. If somebody is now employed by the Police Service of Northern Ireland or the Scottish police force, that could present difficulties. I would like to see the matter resolved. The Minister has said outside the Chamber that he has discussed it and is coming to a conclusion on it.
	I welcome support for the Bill from Liberty, the human rights group, which believes that this is the right course of action. There is cross-community support for the Bill and I wish it fair passage. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) referred in an intervention to the petition organised by Anne Williams. Perhaps the Minister winding up the debate can give us an update. As we know, Anne Williams has a very difficult and challenging illness and wishes to ensure that her concerns about her family’s loss are resolved before her illness reaches a sad conclusion, as she expects it to do. We should consider an early opportunity to discuss that petition again in the House. May I press the Minister for an early answer from the Department on the earliest possible inquest into the family of Anne Williams?
	The Bill has widespread support. There are some issues which I have raised with the Minister today that we want to see explored in detail, but I know as somebody who represents families who lost relatives at Hillsborough, I know from being born and growing up in Liverpool the community that I represent, I know from my support for that football team for my entire life, and I know from the contributions, work and efforts of my right hon. and hon. Friends from across the region and across my area of north Wales that the events of Hillsborough in 1989 caused such challenge, tragedy and concern that we now want justice for the families of those 96 victims and others who were injured.
	Through their effort, passion and commitment the families have brought the case to the stage that we are at today, where an inquest is potentially pending, verdicts can be quashed and the Director of Public Prosecutions is going to act on the matter. The Bill gives an opportunity for the Independent Police Complaints Commission to provide answers and take real action on the concerns that have existed for many years. I welcome the Second Reading of the Bill. We will return to issues in due course in Committee, but the Opposition support the Bill here and in another place and look forward to the day when the IPCC’s investigation leads to satisfaction, truth and justice for the families of those who were lost in Sheffield on that day in 1989.

Stephen Mosley: I, too, welcome and warmly approve of the Bill. The whole country was shocked by the findings of the Hillsborough independent panel. In subsequent statements and debates in this House, it has become obvious that there is a huge groundswell of parliamentary opinion that swift action needs to be taken to achieve swift justice for the 96.
	Outside this debate, the Attorney-General is doing absolutely the right thing by pushing for an early referral to the High Court and for it to make a speedy decision on the validity of the original inquests. The Home Secretary has done absolutely the right thing by calling for the IPCC to investigate both the actions of the police on the day of Hillsborough and their subsequent involvement in any form of cover-up. She promised that the IPCC would be given the powers and resources it needs to pursue that investigation, and that is what the Bill delivers.
	I would like to thank the Home Secretary for the speed with which she has brought the Bill forward. The families of the Hillsborough victims and the survivors are understandably looking for swift justice. Given that the IPCC intends to begin calling witnesses to its investigation at the beginning of next year, the sooner it is in possession of the necessary tools, the better.
	It is important to say that, as with all the progress that has been made on Hillsborough since 2010, I am delighted that the Bill has cross-party support today. I know that the shadow Home Secretary spoke in favour of fast-track legislation during the Bill’s First Reading a fortnight ago, and Opposition Members have been a great help in advancing the Bill.

Alison McGovern: I agree wholeheartedly with every word the hon. Gentleman has said. Does he agree that if it was possible to dedicate legislation, we would all like to dedicate this legislation to the families of those who lost loved ones on that day?

Stephen Mosley: I agree entirely. I know families of people from Chester who sadly died that day, and 23 years later it still affects them daily. It is up to us in this House to ensure that we achieve a swift resolution for them, and that is what we are trying to do. It is what we have been trying to do since the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) set up the independent panel three years ago. Absolutely everything we do is to ensure that we get justice for all 96 and all survivors.
	The Bill, as we have heard, contains two main clauses and performs two main functions. I will look at it backwards and consider clause 2 first. Clause 2 allows the IPCC to launch investigations into incidents that occurred before the commission was established in 2004 and incidents previously investigated by its predecessor, the Police Complaints Authority. The Bill will essentially make it possible for the IPCC to investigate police actions at Hillsborough 23 years ago, which I totally support.
	The Bill will also compel serving police officers to attend hearings as witnesses, a power that has not previously been available to the IPCC. It is important to note that, although the Bill has been brought forward specifically because of Hillsborough, most of us would agree that the power to call police officers as witnesses should be a tool that is regularly at the IPCC’s disposal. I am therefore pleased that the Bill is not set to expire and that the powers conferred on the commission will be retained for future IPCC investigations.
	I note, as did the shadow Policing Minister, that the Police Federation has expressed some concerns, especially about the clause that will require police officers to
	attend an interview. Steve Evans, who leads for the Police Federation on professional standards, has raised a valid concern:
	“Police officers are going to be treated differently from any other section of society. I am not quite sure what”
	the Home Secretary
	“is hoping to achieve.”
	In response to that point, I think that police officers should indeed be treated differently from other sections of society, by virtue of the fact that they are entrusted to administer the law, must be accountable for their actions and must not be able to shy away from any form of investigation. Mr Evans went on to say:
	“I would like to know what the problem is that needs fixing—as well as the evidence which suggests that officers do not comply with the current system.”
	The IPCC briefing paper that we received helps us in responding to Mr Evans’ concerns. It says:
	“Though we do not keep specific records of instances of non-cooperation, we have readily been able to identify at least 25 cases, involving over 100 police officers, where there has been a refusal to attend for interview. These cases cover such serious matters as death or serious injury, police shootings, road traffic incidents and the use of excessive force.”
	Indeed, a recent case in point is that of the shooting of Mark Duggan in Tottenham last year that contributed to the escalation of violence in the area and led eventually to riots across the country. The police marksman who shot Mr Duggan refused to be interviewed by the IPCC as part of its investigation into the incident, as did 30 other officers. Because of the legislation that is currently in place, the commission was unable to insist on attendance. Regardless of the specific need to expedite investigations into Hillsborough, Mr Duggan’s case alone highlights a need for wider change in the legislation.
	While I am totally supportive of the Bill and wish it all speed and every success in its passage through Parliament today, there are a couple of areas where questions need to be answered. First, the Bill does not compel ex-police officers or ex-police staff to attend interviews as witnesses. Hillsborough was 23 years ago, and many of the officers involved will no longer be serving. I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is aware of this problem and has considered it. On 22 October, during the debate on the Hillsborough independent panel’s report, she said:
	“The Government are already looking at what additional powers the IPCC will need, which includes proposals to require current and ex-police officers who may be witness to a crime to attend an interview”.—[Official Report, 22 October 2012; Vol. 551, c. 721.]
	I, too, would like the IPCC to be given the power to call former officers to give evidence. I appreciate, however, that that may be a difficult provision to enact and that this emergency Bill is probably not the right place in which to include such a power. I note that the IPCC has discussed this and decided that the requirement relating to former officers would be unenforceable and that there would be little value in adding it to the Bill.
	However, I would like one aspect to be tightened, and, with other Members on both sides of the House, I have submitted a probing amendment to be discussed in Committee to explore it further. In essence, it is about sanctions for non-attendance at interviews. As the Bill stands, sanctions for non-compliance will be dealt with by the relevant authority tasked with dealing with
	misconduct against the officer in question. However, the question of whether the non-attendance of the officer is to be determined as misconduct is also left at the discretion of the relevant authority. The IPCC has stated that a refusal to attend an interview should be immediately categorised as misconduct and that appropriate disciplinary action should instantly be triggered. I have a large degree of sympathy with that proposal. I implore the Policing Minister to consider adopting the amendment, which would allow the Home Secretary to ensure that clear, unambiguous and consistent sanctions can be implemented across the country.
	This debate is set in the context of an extremely tragic matter, but in my two and a half years as a Member of Parliament the issue of Hillsborough has consistently brought out the very best in this House. For as long as that is necessary, I hope that it continues.

Nigel Evans: Order. I gave some leeway to the hon. Gentleman in making his speech, but I hope that we will not dwell too much on the amendment, as we will obviously move on to that in Committee.

Louise Ellman: A number of hon. Members have already pointed out that it is highly unusual to fast-track an important Bill, but we are dealing with an unusual circumstance and it is essential that this Bill goes through. We are dealing with the aftermath of a terrible tragedy that happened 23 years ago: 96 people died, thousands more were injured or traumatised, there was a cover-up, nobody was brought to book for what happened and, indeed, the victims were blamed for the culpability of others. That cover-up is now unravelling and there is a desire for urgent justice and accountability. That is why we are considering this Bill, but this is only one part of a whole range of actions now being taken speedily and correctly.
	The Independent Police Complaints Commission has published its 10-point terms of reference, a number of which demonstrate the relevance of this Bill. The IPCC wants to find out what happened and how 116 witness statements came to be altered in order to remove or lessen the culpability of police and, indeed, others. It wants to consider the validity of the police evidence to the all-important Taylor inquiry. It wants to consider the conduct of the West Yorkshire and South Yorkshire police in relation not just to what happened at the time but to subsequent investigations. It wants to investigate the authorisation given to test the alcohol levels of the victims and to allow access to the police national computer in an attempt to denigrate the victims. The vital issue of what happened on the day and of who took the decision to open the Leppings Lane gate is critical. The culmination of all that was the attempted cover-up—indeed, it was successful—to blame the victims for what happened.
	Those are just some of the items specified in the IPCC’s terms of reference. In order for them to be investigated properly, it is essential that the IPCC has adequate powers. It is critical that we discuss the issue and make a decision today so that the new investigation can start quickly. I understand that if we reach an agreement today, the IPCC investigation will be able to start in early 2013.
	The Bill addresses two key areas. First, it will enable the IPCC to compel serving officers and their staff to answer its questions as witnesses. The IPCC will be able to consider whether they are guilty of misconduct or, indeed, criminality, but it is also essential that they come forward as witnesses. Secondly—this is also essential—it will allow the IPCC to investigate issues previously investigated by its predecessor, the Police Complaints Authority. Both measures are important.
	This debate has already shown that there are question marks over the Bill’s adequacy in respect of those measures. What would happen, for example, if serving officers or their staff did not agree to come forward when requested? Would the disciplinary measures, which have been spelt out this afternoon, be adequate? I do not think that we will know the answer until such an event happens. The issue of calling retired officers or staff is not covered by the Bill, either. There may be other means of doing that, but the situation is extremely unclear. Those are two areas of the Bill that stand out at this stage as either not covered adequately or, in the case of retired officers, not covered at all.
	Some of the issues will be addressed when we discuss the amendment in Committee following this Second Reading debate, but it is essential that there is continuing dialogue and that the House is made aware of any progress. We need to know whether the proposals for addressing these matters are valid, and we need an ongoing discussion and up-to-date information, so that if any further steps are required they can be enacted without undue delay.
	There is cross-party agreement on what is happening. The Hillsborough independent panel was set up in the last Parliament and its work has been taken forward in this one. There is cross-party agreement on that.
	Twenty-three years is a long time to wait for justice. The families deserve no less than truth, justice and accountability. That requires speedy action, but that action must be backed up by sufficient powers to enable the proper information to be considered in a judicial process, if that is what is required. I hope that the Bill will help to achieve that.
	It is extremely important that the House is kept informed of progress, including the consequences of this Bill being passed and the question of reopening the inquest—something that will be considered in this place at another time.

Julian Huppert: It will not be news to anybody in this House how serious the Hillsborough disaster was. It is still the worst tragedy in British sporting history. The shocking revelations of deception, blame and injustice have resonated with football fans and many others around the world. The 96 people paid an awful price and we are still learning from it today. I hope that Parliament will at last ensure that we learn the harsh lessons of the last 23 years through this vital legislation.
	I will not go through the details of what happened because they have been eloquently expressed by many right hon. and hon. Members who have much closer links to these events, and the unacceptable acts of
	manipulation and self-interest by the police forces involved in the disaster have been covered extensively in the media. It is clear from the Hillsborough independent panel report that the extent of the loss of life can be attributed to multiple failures in the emergency services and other public bodies that were charged with the safety of the public on that occasion.
	We have to accept the reality that South Yorkshire and West Midlands police, as well as other emergency services, made “strenuous attempts” to deflect the blame for the crush on to the victims. The report stated clearly that 116 of 164 police statements were
	“amended to remove or alter comments unfavourable to”
	South Yorkshire police. I know that the whole House would agree that that is clearly unacceptable.
	For the victims of the catastrophe who have seen decades pass without justice, it is essential that we act to ensure that the systems put in place to protect the public can no longer place themselves above that duty. It is therefore critical that we reform the IPCC. There are two issues. First, the changes proposed in this Bill, which I support, will, we hope, help the Hillsborough investigation, although I have a couple of concerns that I will raise in a moment.
	Secondly, there is a need for broader reform of the IPCC. There is much concern among the public that it does not always act sufficiently independently, that it does not take up enough cases and that it is not able to investigate cases as well as it needs to. I am pleased that the Minister has made it clear that he will consider carefully the work that the Home Affairs Committee is doing to look more broadly at the IPCC. There are a number of points that I hope he will look at. I have already raised the issue of those who operate in quasi-policing roles. The former Chair of the IPCC, Nick Hardwick, has said that
	“if it looks like a police officer, talks like a police officer, walks like a police officer, the IPCC should investigate it.”
	The Minister has said that he will have an open mind in looking at those issues. I hope that he will take action on quasi-policing roles.
	The Liberal Democrats support the Bill entirely. We are delighted that it also has the support of organisations such as Liberty, which rightly states that there should be due process for police officers. However, there are a number of issues that are not quite clear and I would be grateful if the Minister could reiterate his position on them. The first is what will happen to police officers who are required to attend an interview but who refuse to answer questions at it. Everybody has the right not to answer questions and not to self-incriminate, but there is a question about whether there is a duty on somebody who is still an employee to answer questions. The Home Affairs Committee report, which we concluded yesterday in time for this debate, states at recommendation 10:
	“We note that refusal to attend an interview may result in misconduct or gross misconduct proceedings, but that there is no sanction for refusal to answer questions. We expect that chief constables will indicate to their forces that such uncooperative behaviour would be considered to be at odds with the spirit of professional duty.”
	I hope that the Minister will confirm that that is his interpretation, too, and that he will encourage chief constables to make that clear more broadly.
	There is still the issue, which I raised with the Minister earlier, of former police officers. He pointed out, and others confirmed it, that they would have a moral obligation to co-operate. That is definitely right—we would like former police officers to take part—but I am not clear what would happen if the unfortunate occurred, and some police officers did not agree to co-operate and that caused a fundamental problem with the investigation. I hope that the Minister will consider what happens if that becomes a problem.

Damian Green: In the middle of that section of his speech, the hon. Gentleman moved from retired police officers to police officers. Did he mean retired police officers?

Julian Huppert: I am sorry; I meant former police officers who do not have to attend an interview and decide not to do so, and that becomes a problem. I hope that the Minister will consider, obviously with much reluctance, whether we need to do anything else to ensure justice. I thank him for correcting me if I misspoke.
	I hope that the Bill will be passed quickly, and I look forward to hearing other hon. Members’ comments today.

Angela Smith: I am pleased to be able take part in this debate, albeit briefly, because the events of that awful day took place in the city that I represent, and I was the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough before the election.
	I welcome the Bill, and not just because it makes the IPCC’s work so much easier—the investigation into what really happened at Hillsborough, and, in the course of establishing the truth, holding to account those who were responsible. I heard what the Minister said about the bar for the use of the powers in the IPCC’s future investigations, but I believe that incidents such as Orgreave will reach the standards that that bar requires, and that the Bill will be applied to them.
	I pay tribute to the shadow Home Secretary and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) for their work, and to the Minister. The non-partisan manner in which the matter has been handled is a tribute to the House’s response to Hillsborough and to the Hillsborough independent panel’s report. It has been to Parliament’s credit. We need to continue in that spirit.
	I sympathise with the shadow Minister’s views on the need to consider how we can enable the IPCC to require retired police officers to co-operate with the investigation. That is a critical point. If we are trying to make it possible for the IPCC to conduct a thorough and definitive investigation into what happened at Hillsborough, it is vital that no stone is left unturned, to use a cliché. Not to be able to interview retired members of the force would leave a massive hole in the IPCC’s investigations. Somehow, that loophole—that weakness—in the IPCC’s powers needs to be resolved before it completes its investigations.
	In the debate in response to the Hillsborough panel’s report, I spoke about the need for the House to recognise that policing in South Yorkshire has changed since 1989. I reiterate that today. Policing has clearly moved on from where it was 23 years ago, not only in South
	Yorkshire but throughout the country. Nevertheless, that does not mean that things are perfect. The provisions in the Bill are part of the evidence that policing in this country is moving forward. The fact that we are at the point where we are saying that serving police officers and, we hope, retired officers can be required to give evidence to the IPCC is a clear tribute to the progress that we are slowly making towards a position in which policing is as transparent as possible. Only when we get to that position can we truly say that people will once again trust policing in this country.

David Hanson: Perhaps the Minister can respond in his winding-up speech to one point I should have made in my contribution but did not. What happens if an officer is under investigation under the powers in the Bill, and subsequently, during the course of the investigation, determines to retire? Perhaps the Minister could clarify on the record what happens in those circumstances.

Angela Smith: I concur with my right hon. Friend that that is one of the key questions we need to discuss in Committee. This is not only about retired officers and serving officers, but about those who do not want, through misguided loyalty, to incriminate people with whom they have worked over the years, and who might be tempted to retire, because they are on the point of retirement, to avoid having to give evidence.
	The numbers who will try to do that will be relatively small. I am absolutely confident that the vast majority of South Yorkshire officers, both retired and serving, will be keen for the truth on Hillsborough to be established. Most will be keen to co-operate with the IPCC inquiry. Some of those who were there on the day have been to see me about Hillsborough. It is clear that they want to put on the record their role on the day and the fact that they did nothing wrong. It is in the interests of all those who were serving in the force at that time and who were involved in the events of that day are given the opportunity to put on the record their memories of what happened. That is why the vast majority of officers will be keen to co-operate. The establishment of the whole truth is the only way in which this issue will be resolved once and for all. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) said, truth, justice and accountability are the only way forward.
	The hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) mentioned the possibility of witnesses refusing to co-operate. I know the South Yorkshire force and its leadership reasonably well. Hon. Members can only place our trust in the ability of that leadership to ensure that the clear message goes out to serving and retired officers that full co-operation with the work of the IPCC is required. We have a golden opportunity to lay this issue to rest once and for all. Achieving that goal—once and for all resolving the disaster of April 1989—is primarily in the interests of the families of the bereaved, but it is also in the interests of South Yorkshire police and the people of Sheffield, who have lived with the disaster daily.
	It is incumbent on all of us to remember that the provisions in the Bill apply not only to the actions of South Yorkshire police on the day and West Midlands police. We know from the IPCC that other police forces are almost certainly involved. If Orgreave is investigated using the powers in the Bill, the provisions will apply to
	a number of police forces. In the interests of accountability, transparency and the future of policing in this country, but more than anything in the interests of the families of the 96, the Bill should be given a clear passage through the Commons and speedily taken through the Lords, so that we can get it on the statute book and the IPCC can get on with its work.

George Howarth: I have been sitting here waiting to be called trying to think of some words with which to introduce my comments. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman),who I thought was about to leave just as I was going to compliment her, expressed well the strong feelings her constituents and mine have about the independent panel report chaired by the Bishop of Liverpool. I do not seek to add to that, other than to say that she demonstrated that we are almost at the point of exhausting the lexicon of infamy in describing what came out in it.
	I want to make only two points, and I will try to be brief. First, with a little indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to say that I know the Attorney-General is close to the end of his deliberations on whether an application should be made to the court on the inquest that took place. As I have said previously, I attended one day of the inquest with some of my constituents and have never witnessed proceedings so designed to offend. I do not want to add to that, but I do not use that description lightly. I hope the Attorney-General will reach a speedy conclusion to his deliberations, that the application will be made to the court quickly and that notice is taken of the online petition referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), which was set up by Anne Williams. I hesitate to go much further than that because I am well aware of how the Lord Chief Justice might respond to the interference of politicians in the conduct of the courts, but I hope it will be given prominence in the discussions between the Attorney-General and the Lord Chief Justice. We have the opportunity to talk about serving officers when we discuss the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley), myself and others, so I will reserve my comments on that issue until then.
	The second issue is whether retired police officers can be compelled to give evidence to the IPCC’s investigation. My hon. Friends the Members for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) and for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) and the hon. Member for City of Chester have rightly called on the good name of the police and said that they hope everyone will do the honourable and honest thing. I echo those calls, but I throw in a note of caution. Some people who are now retired—I will not get into the realms of talking about who they may be or what they may have done—may be culpable of offences. Appeals to their honour, when by giving evidence they risk being put in a position where they are either telling lies or incriminating themselves, will in some cases fall on fairly stony ground.
	In the years I have been a Member of this House, and even before that, I have always been a strong supporter of the police. I believe they perform an incredibly important role on behalf of all of us in society. But the
	truth is—my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside mentioned this difference—we know that serving police officers, either under pressure or voluntarily, altered important statements, and many of them will now be retired. I realise the Minister’s problem, and I am not criticising him for not finding a way of covering those people in the Bill, but the IPCC will have to think about how it can, if not compel, at least make it difficult for those retired officers not to give evidence. Quite how it can do that, at this juncture, is beyond me. I do not offer any suggestions, but it is something that the IPCC needs to give careful thought to.
	I wish to bring to the IPCC’s attention one other point that has been referred to already. Often, it is all too easy to find a friendly doctor to say, “This person is not in a fit state to give evidence in such a forum.” Let us be brutally honest. If someone searches for long enough, they will find a doctor who will do that. If what I shall call the Pinochet defence is used in these cases, I hope that the IPCC will not accept it at face value and that, if somebody claims to be unable to give evidence on the grounds of ill health, further inquiries will be made to test the validity of the claim.
	Finally, it was remiss of me not to welcome the Bill and the work that the Home Secretary, the Minister and my right hon. and hon. Friends have done to bring us to this pass. With the reservations I have outlined, I am happy to give my strong support to the Bill.

Bill Esterson: My right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) mentioned the experience of some of his constituents at the inquests. That is something that has been said to me as well. Family members have told me they felt that they were the criminals, so bad was the atmosphere and the way they were treated by those carrying out the inquest and some of those giving evidence, including police officers, some of whom might be among those who need to be dealt with by the Bill. I welcome the provisions and the attempt to do just that.
	The independent panel report, among other things, found evidence of extensive alteration of police records and attempts to impugn the reputations of the deceased. In its response to the report, the IPCC noted that it could not investigate all aspects of the police’s conduct, because when the IPCC took over from the Police Complaints Authority, a transitional provisions order set out that certain old cases could not be investigated under the new framework. The Minister has adequately covered that point.
	The Bill will provide two key new powers. The first will require a serving police officer to attend an interview as a witness. This new power will be increased by regulations. The second new power will be to set aside the relevant articles of the transitional provisions order in exceptional circumstances, so that the IPCC can investigate certain old cases, where the PCA had already been involved. I will speak briefly to both points.
	In its response to the panel’s report, the IPCC set out the potential misconduct that had been disclosed. The potential criminal and misconduct issues fall into two broad categories: allegations—which go to the heart of what happened at Hillsborough on 15 April 1989—that individuals or institutions may be culpable for the deaths;
	and allegations about what happened after the disaster, including allegations that evidence was fabricated and misinformation spread in an attempt to avoid blame. The IPCC decision document set out a large number of matters that it proposed to investigate, but noted that it was legally prevented from looking at some matters that had previously been investigated. That is why we are here today.
	I will give one example of what is set out in the report: the early lie, by Chief Superintendent Duckenfield, about the gates being forced open, which was corrected by the chief constable that evening. This was investigated by West Midlands police under the supervision of the Police Complaints Authority. As such, although the IPCC deplores such dishonesty, it is legally prevented from investigating the issue further; it will therefore not be investigated. There are many examples of police actions that the PCA had already investigated. That is why this Bill is so important and why it is so important that the IPCC should be given the powers to investigate what happened at Hillsborough.
	It is right that action can be taken against retired officers. A number of right hon. and hon. Members have expressed their concerns about exactly how retired officers will be dealt with. The Policing Minister has acknowledged that point, but not yet to the satisfaction of all of us in the Chamber. We all understand the difficulties, which is why they are not addressed by the Bill at this point. However, I repeat that there are dangers, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley gave the Pinochet example as one potential difficulty.
	There were serious failings on the day and an immediate and longer-term cover-up by police officers, yet no one has been convicted for their role in either the deaths of the 96 or the systematic cover-up and the vilification of the dead, their families and the injured. It is to be hoped that the process this Bill is part of will enable that injustice to be rectified. Officers were pressurised to change their statements. This Bill, along with the interest that Members in this House have demonstrated over the last few years, will not only show the strength of our feeling, but reflect the strength of public opinion, which is also represented by the number of people who have signed the latest petition and previous ones. It is now right that officers and former officers come forward to give evidence and tell their story—it certainly should have happened before—knowing that they have public support and that they are not driven by some misguided view that they should protect colleagues or former colleagues, as my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) said. Officers certainly should be coming forward to tell their story. This legislation will ensure that serving officers do that, but it will hopefully encourage former officers to do so as well.
	The Minister rightly spoke of the “industrial scale” of the alteration of statements. That is an apt description. He was right, and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) was right to say that nothing must stand in the way of the application for a new inquest, given that Anne Williams is so seriously ill. Indeed, she spends much of her time in a hospice. Justice for Anne and the other families is the absolute priority. They have campaigned hard for recognition of what happened; they have campaigned for far too long. That has been acknowledged in the
	independent panel’s report. From what the Attorney-General has said, the application for new inquests is imminent—I am sure that is the case. This Bill provides an opportunity for one of the big injustices—the action of those police officers who broke the law—to be addressed. The Bill should be allowed to proceed as quickly as possible.

Damian Green: With the leave of the House, I should like to respond to the debate. I am grateful to all those who have contributed and helped us to make progress towards ensuring that justice will follow truth. It is important for the House to consider all the issues and questions that the introduction of this Bill has raised. Members of this House have shown great commitment in driving us closer to getting the IPCC investigation under way. The point has been well made by the shadow Policing Minister, the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), and others that people do not want more talk. They simply want to see the changes that will unlock justice.
	We have twin responsibilities in this House: we have to ensure that progress is made after such a long wait for the truth, but we also have a parliamentary responsibility to ensure that the Bill that passes through the House is appropriate and fit for purpose. I think that today we will meet both those responsibilities. I am grateful for the support from hon. Members on both sides in getting through all the business in a short time. The Bill will enable the IPCC to conduct a comprehensive, painstaking and, above all, transparent investigation. Transparency has perhaps not been mentioned enough, but it is important that what the IPCC uncovers should be transparent.
	Let me address the individual points that have been made today. I shall start with those of the right hon. Member for Delyn. He asked about consultation with the families. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary met representatives of the Hillsborough family groups on 18 October and, as the right hon. Gentleman would expect, Home Office officials continue to be in regular contact with the groups and will write to them again following today’s debate. The Home Secretary has also asked the Bishop of Liverpool to continue to act as the Government’s adviser on Hillsborough. His close relationship with the families will obviously be very beneficial.
	Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram), asked about a single lead investigator, as did the shadow Minister. There are legal and constitutional constraints that would prevent the appointment of a single investigator to investigate Hillsborough. Each of the bodies involved, and the processes relating to them, are independent under laws passed by this House. However, I am conscious of the need for the various investigatory bodies, independent though they might be, to work closely together. The IPCC and the Director of Public Prosecutions are working closely together, and with others who have responsibility for investigating those who cannot be the subject of IPCC investigations. Discussions are continuing on how to approach any aspects of the investigation that cannot be covered by the IPCC. I was also asked about the time scale. A decision on that will be made very early next year. We are moving ahead with that as fast as possible.

Steve Rotheram: The Minister has mentioned our questions about a lead investigator. According to paragraph 9 on page 3 of the Home Affairs Select Committee report that was published today, the Committee is recommending
	“that a single, lead investigator should be identified”.
	How much consideration will he give to that report?

Damian Green: As I have said, I can see where the demand is coming from, and I have read the Home Affairs Select Committee report. There are, however, very good reasons for what I have said about this, which I am sure hon. Members will understand. Given the constitutional independence of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the IPCC, there could not be any attempt to direct them, especially the DPP. It would be improper in all senses for a chief investigator, let alone a Home Office Minister, to direct him and tell him what to do. It would certainly be constitutionally improper as well, so there are genuine difficulties involved in going down that route. I assume that the underlying drive behind the request for such an investigator is the need to ensure that people do not go off in different directions or fail to talk to each other, thereby causing unnecessary delay through a lack of coherence among the various strands that hon. Members have talked about. Everyone involved is aware of that; I know they are doing their best to make sure that they proceed as much as possible in parallel.
	The right hon. Member for Delyn asked me about engagement with the Police Superintendents Association and the Police Federation. As I said in response to an earlier intervention, I have already had an exchange of correspondence with both bodies; indeed, my officials spoke to them before the Bill was published. I believe the right hon. Gentleman said at one stage that we should have consulted formally, but that would have taken 10 or 12 weeks, so it would clearly have been impossible. Inevitably, there has not been a lot of time between getting the Bill right and publishing it. Of necessity, then, the consultation with the bodies was done relatively shortly before we proceeded. I sensed the House’s pressure to get on with this, and that is what we are doing.

David Hanson: In view of the written comments that I explained, will the Minister agree to meet, prior to Second Reading in the other place, representatives of both the Police Federation and the Police Superintendents Association to discuss the Bill?

Damian Green: I already have in my diary a meeting with the Police Federation next week, and I would be happy to meet the Police Superintendents Association at any time.
	There has been a lot of discussion about retired officers—not least by the shadow policing Minister, but also by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), the hon. Members for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) and for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) and the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson). As I have said, former officers are civilians—not police officers—and they are no longer bound by the duties and regulations that governed their lives as serving officers. The police themselves do not have powers to
	compel witnesses to attend interviews, so I can only repeat that to grant this power to the IPCC would be unusual in the extreme. However, given the seriousness of the allegations being considered by the IPCC in the Hillsborough case, I repeat that the IPCC has made it clear that it will fully conclude investigations for both criminality and misconduct even when officers have left the service.
	This is an unusual step. The IPCC does not normally investigate retired officers for misconduct, but it is clear in this case that there is an enormous and legitimate public demand, reflected by Members of all parties, for that to happen. That is what the IPCC was going to do. During its investigation, the IPPC will no doubt call retired officers to provide evidence. As we all agree, the retired officers will understand the importance of this investigation, and I am sure that the vast majority, if not all of them, will attend willingly.
	Finally, the IPCC has been clear that it needs these powers only in respect of serving officers. That is what the Bill provides for. I understand the calls to grant a power to compel retired officers to give evidence, but because it is so unusual and because it would be such a powerful tool, I think it would be inappropriate to do this through fast-track legislation. That should be considered when it comes to the possibility of future legislation.

George Howarth: I understand the Minister’s point that making a change such as this in fast-track legislation might not be appropriate, but can he give a commitment that, should it become apparent later that there is a reluctance on the part of retired officers to come forward, some further action could be taken by this House to bring in an element of compulsion?

Damian Green: What I will say is that we are debating this Bill here today because the IPPC came to the Government and said, “We need extra powers”. We have responded as quickly as possible so as not to delay the move from truth to justice. We are always willing to accept representations from the IPCC and to consider what is the most practical way of allowing it to do its job as efficiently as possible.
	The right hon. Member for Delyn asked me about a related subject, namely the retirement of officers during an investigation. The IPCC can continue an investigation into either criminal or misconduct matters even when an officer has chosen to retire in the middle of it. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is reassured by that. He also asked about private contractors. Contractors working as detention and escort officers already fall under the IPCC’s oversight, and are therefore covered by the Bill. We are considering the need to extend the provision to other kinds of contractor. That is not relevant to events that took place in 1989, because there were no private contractors then, but we will consider the issue in the longer term, along with the IPCC.
	I was asked when the IPCC investigation would conclude. I think that everyone recognises that it is a huge, complex, far-reaching investigation, and that it will take time for it to conclude thoroughly. The last thing we want is an investigation that is not carried out thoroughly. The IPCC will set out the scope and projected timings in the new year. As well as meeting my officials, it has been meeting the families and their representatives, and will continue to do so in order to ensure that they are in the loop at all times.
	My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) asked about sanctions. As we are about to debate that subject, I shall not intrude on your patience, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I will say that we have not expressly provided for a sanction for failing to comply with a witness attendance requirement because effective sanctions are already available under the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2012. I shall doubtless say more about that shortly, when we discuss amendment 1.
	Let me again thank the Opposition, and Members in all parts of the House, who have spoken today and expressed their support for the Bill. I hope that the constructive manner and tone that have characterised the debate will serve as a reassurance, not least to the families of the victims, that the House is working well to try to help them as much as possible. I look forward to the Bill’s remaining stages.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time.

POLICE (COMPLAINTS AND CONDUCT) BILL (MONEY)

Queen’s Recommendation signified.
	Resolved,
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Police (Complaints and Conduct) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Damian Green.)

Police (Complaints And Conduct) Bill

Considered in Committee

[Mr Nigel Evans in the Chair]

Clause 1
	 — 
	Interviews of serving officers during investigations

Stephen Mosley: I beg to move amendment 1, page2,line4,at end insert—
	‘(e) for sanctions to be imposed on serving officers who fail to comply with the interview process.’.
	One of the advantages of a Committee stage that directly follows Second Reading is that every Member in the Chamber has heard the preamble. Everyone is aware of the issues, and everyone has heard the Minister’s initial response. That means that my speech can be much briefer than it would otherwise have been: I hope to be able to complete it in two or three minutes.
	We have all heard the arguments, and we have all heard the discussions. We have heard the discussion about whether former police officers should be forced to attend hearings, and the discussion about whether officers who attend hearings but refuse to give evidence should be included in the scope of the Bill. I want to concentrate on an issue on which I think we can have an impact: whether sanctions should apply if a police officer refuses to engage in the investigation process. That was mentioned to us by the IPCC itself, and we ought to give further consideration to whether it should be included in the Bill.
	One question is whether the Bill should include a requirement on Ministers to draw up sanctions. To that end, I and other members of the all-party group on the Hillsborough disaster have proposed a probing amendment, to encourage the Minister to explain why such a provision is not included in the Bill. I hope my right hon. Friend the Minister will appreciate that it is not designed to obstruct what is an important and necessary emergency Bill, and that he will take the amendment in the spirit in which it is intended, which is to raise a serious question that requires a serious answer.
	The Bill compels serving officers to attend interviews in the course of an IPCC investigation, but it does not give an indication of what sanctions can be imposed on a serving officer who fails, or refuses, to attend an interview. As the Bill currently stands, sanctions for non-compliance will be dealt with by the relevant authority tasked with dealing with the misconduct of the officer in question. However, whether the non-attendance of the officer is to be determined as misconduct is also left to the discretion of the relevant authority.
	I agree with the IPCC that a refusal to attend an interview should be immediately categorised as misconduct, and that appropriate disciplinary action should be instantly triggered. The IPCC says in its briefing document:
	“The Commission is firmly of the view that if this power is to be effective, a failure to comply with a direction to attend should amount to misconduct. The Bill does not provide for such a sanction and we have expressed some concern about this, as we anticipate that some chief officers would welcome this unambiguous
	approach. The Commission hopes that Parliament will make clear that it is its express wish that police personnel should co-operate with IPCC investigations.”
	By adding the amendment to the Bill we will instantly deal with all of the IPCC’s concerns in this area. Parliament will be giving a clear indication that police personnel should co-operate with IPCC investigations. Parliament will also be offering a clear, unambiguous approach to chief officers across the country as to the disciplinary action that we expect to be taken if a witness fails to comply with an interview request. The IPCC will have the confidence to deliver on its duty, in the full knowledge that Parliament is prepared to support its difficult work in calling police officers to account through an unambiguous legislative framework.
	What I am not seeking to do through this amendment is tell the Minister what form any sanctions should take, although the IPCC has made a firm statement that it believes the failure to comply with a direction to attend should amount to misconduct. The amendment merely requires the Minister to make a provision for sanctions to be imposed on a serving officer who fails to comply with the interview process. It is a simple provision that failure to comply would be a breach of the prescribed standards of behaviour as defined by the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2012 and would result in misconduct proceedings. That would satisfy all the issues raised and would be clear and unambiguous to all involved. I therefore encourage my right hon. Friend the Minister to consider agreeing to this amendment.
	I began by saying that it was a probing amendment to explore the issues involved in imposing sanctions on serving officers who fail to comply with a direction to attend, but I hope the Minister will send out a clear, unambiguous message about the sanctions that he expects to be imposed on those who fail to comply. I am sure that if he does so, he will get the clear and unambiguous support of all Members of this House.

Alison McGovern: I want to raise a couple of issues. I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) that our Second Reading debate served to provide an eloquent account of the context and importance of the Bill, so I shall not repeat any of those themes, but let me repeat, as I never tire of doing, my personal tribute to the families of the 96. As I said before, they should think of this as their Bill.
	Our amendment was designed to be a probing amendment, and again I thank the Minister for his response to my letter yesterday. With your agreement, Mr Evans, I shall just ask a few further questions and I hope the Minister will help the Committee by answering them. He said that effective sanctions are available to deal with those officers who do not wish to attend. The question we seek to ask through this amendment is this: to whom are those sanctions available? From what he has said, I take it that they are available to the officer’s force, but we are trying to push for them to be available to the IPCC. What we are doing here is giving the IPCC sufficient powers to make the necessary investigations, so my question to the Minister is this: how will the Government ensure that the IPCC has effective sanctions to deal with those who do not wish to attend?
	Arising from that is my second question: is deferral to the police force in question enough? Does the Minister have any evidence to suggest that that is a sufficient way of approaching this issue? I was helped in my thinking about this amendment, which we tabled in recent days, and here I must thank Sally Lipscombe of the House of Commons Library. She quickly looked up for me the regulations that apply, and it appears to me that there are some questions on which an answer from the Minister would be helpful, not the least of which is the point that I have just made about what evidence there is that such a sanction is enough to compel officers to attend.
	Thirdly, what happens once a sanction is applied? How does the interview and the evidence-gathering process then proceed? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) mentioned, we are concerned here with not only those honourable members of police forces who will be happy and keen to co-operate with the IPCC, but those officers whose evidence is vital but who do not wish to co-operate, for whatever reason—they must understand that for themselves in their own heart. If the force in question does choose to use the sanctions, does the IPCC then have sufficient powers available to ensure that the evidence-gathering interview proceeds properly and informs the investigation?
	In essence, I wish to probe the answer to the three questions. How will the Government ensure that the IPCC, de facto as much as de jure, has effective sanction to make sure that people attend and give evidence? Is deferral to the force enough? Do we have any evidence that that is enough? If a sanction is applied, what then happens? How does the IPCC make sure that it has sufficient power for evidence-gathering to proceed?
	I will not trouble the Committee any further on the issue of retired officers, except to repeat my earlier words of hope and anticipation that, notwithstanding the fact that many retired officers would want to give evidence freely and happily, all retired officers who may add to this investigation and bring about justice in a speedy fashion will find it in themselves to do so.
	In conclusion, I just wish to say that although “Justice delayed is justice denied” is a hackneyed old phrase, it could have been written for this debate. So I anticipate speed, as the Minister has suggested, and I thank all Members of this House, not least those on both Front Benches, for their efforts to date.

David Hanson: I want to press the Minister on a couple of points relating to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley), which reflects concerns we have put privately to the Minister outside the Chamber about the powers in the Bill. We had concerns about the sanctions available in the event of officers not participating in discussions with the IPCC when requested according to the provisions in the Bill. The Minister has given me some helpful reassurances—I am sure he will do so again today—on the potential sanctions available to police forces under the current legislation. He recently produced the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2012, which relate to the Bill.
	I have two questions for the Minister. Can he point out the elements of the draft statutory instrument on the police in England and Wales that he published yesterday that highlight that the sanctions are available to forces? He has outlined that to me privately and I
	have no doubt that he will do so again today. My cursory reading of the regulations—I accept that it is cursory—shows no mention of sanctions. I accept that provisions are elsewhere in primary legislation, but it would have been helpful to have put in the regulations the sanction we have discussed that is available to police forces.
	I want to test the Minister on where the buck will stop ultimately when it comes to exercising the sanctions under other legislation that he has mentioned in our discussions outside the Chamber. We now have police and crime commissioners and chief constables. Where will the buck finally stop on these issues, which are essentially personnel matters? If an officer did not participate in a discussion on a non-criminal matter at the request of the IPCC and the sanctions that the Minister has outlined to me privately and will no doubt outline to the House are available, will they be the sole responsibility of the chief constable or could they be overridden by a police and crime commissioner who took a different view? Are these matters operational or strategic?

Stephen Mosley: Surely one of the advantages of police and crime commissioners is that we will have someone who is democratically accountable to the people. If a police and crime commissioner tried to override the decision, I am sure that they would feel the full wrath of public opinion.

David Hanson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I think he has missed my point, which is about where the buck stops. This is about the employment terms and conditions of individuals who work in the Police Service, and if the sanction for not participating in action with the IPCC was dismissal of a police officer, removal of pension or something else under the disciplinary proceedings the Minister has mentioned to me privately, would the chief constable exercise that or could the police and crime commissioner? Would the police and crime commissioner stand aside from the decision or would the chief constable take it alone? I am not trying to complicate matters; I simply want clarity, and this is the time for clarity on the Bill.
	If a police and crime commissioner took a different view from the chief constable, where would the buck stop? Is the matter operational? Is it protected, or is it not? That is an important point in achieving clarity, because the Bill is not only about the important matters we are debating on Hillsborough but will be in place for future IPCC investigations until it is amended or repealed. Such investigations might be serious, like Hillsborough, or they might be relatively trivial. I want clarity from the Minister about where the responsibility will lie.

Steve Rotheram: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the ways around the point that he raises would be for the Minister to write to individual forces to provide guidance on what he believes would be an appropriate process for forces to follow, should officers refuse to take part in interviews?

David Hanson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that suggestion. The Bill is about giving powers to the IPCC to compel officers to give evidence. If officers do not give evidence because they choose not to do so—in discussions with us, the Police Federation gave examples
	of circumstances where officers may not wish to do so—the IPCC will not be able to take forward the investigations as it wishes in relation to Hillsborough, which is my hon. Friend’s main concern at present. However, the legislation is in place for all time, until it is repealed.
	If there are no sanctions, an officer could retreat into their shell. The sanctions that the Minister outlined to me privately are available to the force, but who takes the decision on such sanctions? Would it be appropriate for a police and crime commissioner to learn about the case from constituents or through representations from the MP and to take decisions? Or is it solely a chief constable matter? I pose those questions for debate.
	I share the wish for a strong examination of the point made by the hon. Member for City of Chester, supported by my right hon. and hon. Friends who signed the amendment, because the question of what happens when an officer says no is critical to the effectiveness of the Bill. The Minister needs to give a strong assurance that that issue will not cause difficulties with the Hillsborough investigation or for future investigations of matters of concern yet to arise, involving a particular force in a particular area.

Damian Green: The amendment seeks to make express provision, on the face of the Bill, for sanctions in relation to a failure to attend an interview. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) and other members of the all-party group for tabling it. As the shadow Police Minister has just said, it airs an important issue. I am happy to assure my hon. Friend and the Committee that such a provision is not needed because the Secretary of State already has the power under the Police Act 1996 to make regulations about misconduct. The effect of the amendment, were it put into law, would be to duplicate a regulation-making power that already exists in the 1996 Act.
	I absolutely support the need for an effective sanction for non-attendance. Various suggestions have been made about how we should convey this to those who will have to operate the sanction. I am fairly sure that this discussion will be important in conveying the will of Parliament to those who do that. I must resist the temptation of the suggestion from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) that I should write to chief constables telling them in detail what they should do. That would be the classic interference in operational matters that we seek to avoid, for obvious reasons.
	I am satisfied that, in relation to serving officers, an effective sanction for failing to comply with the witness attendance requirement in clause 1 already exists. The Police (Conduct) Regulations 2012 include a provision to the effect that misconduct means a breach of prescribed standards of behaviour. A failure to attend an interview, where required to do so, would be a breach of one or more of the prescribed standards, with the result that the officer should become the subject of misconduct proceedings. Those would be serious misconduct proceedings and could result in the officer’s dismissal.

Bill Esterson: I am glad that the Minister has explained the procedures. If he will not write to chief constables to tell them what the disciplinary action should be, I take it that they will be made aware of exactly what is intended and what he has just said.

Damian Green: Absolutely. As I have said, I think that chief constables will be following this debate with some interest.
	To answer one of the points raised by the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), the draft regulations for the Bill do not include that sanction, because we are clear that it can be imposed under the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2012. Of course, we are in continuing talks with the IPCC about the regulations. To answer his other point, it is right that responsibility for matters relating to discipline and the misconduct of serving officers rests with chief officers. They are the people who should deal with that.

David Hanson: Just to be clear, if a police and crime commissioner attempted one way or another to overrule a chief officer’s decision on an issue relating to misconduct under the regulations the Minister has made, they would be acting outside their powers.

Damian Green: The police and crime commissioner is there to hold the chief officer to account. If they believe that the chief officer is behaving wrongly, they will have a discussion about it, and because the commissioner is elected, as my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester rightly said, any sensible chief officer would inevitably wish to avoid a public dispute. The point is that the chief officer takes the operational decisions and the police and crime commissioner holds them to account for their effect. His basic question was who was responsible for enforcing the discipline and misconduct regulations, and the answer is the chief officer.

Bill Esterson: I do not want to stray too far into the role of police and crime commissioners, but if a police and crime commissioner has a conversation with a chief constable because they are unhappy about that, or anything else for that matter, what power will the commissioner have to enforce that provision?

Damian Green: Police and crime commissioners have very significant powers in relation to chief constables. Their ultimate power is to dismiss the chief constable if they believe that they are behaving so badly that that ultimate sanction is necessary, so the legislation provides considerable powers.
	My main point is that the effect of this change will simply be to replicate powers that are already provided for in statute, but it is also important to note that clause 1 places a witness attendance requirement on different categories of individuals. It applies not only to serving police officers, who are members of police forces and subject to the conduct regulations, but to police staff, who operate under a different conduct regime and are outside the scope of the conduct regulations. As such, it would be neither appropriate nor effective for the Secretary of State to make regulations for a universal sanction applying to those two very different categories of individual.
	In clause 1, we have been careful to mirror, as far as possible, the existing provisions in the Police Reform Act 2002 relating to the interview attendance requirement for those who are subject to investigation by the IPCC. As such, the two powers should be similar. The existing provisions in the 2002 Act relating to those under investigation do not include any provision for sanctions.
	To provide expressly for a sanction in primary legislation in relation to witnesses but not to those who are subject to investigation by the IPCC would be anomalous. Such a provision would suggest that the new power relating to witnesses is somehow of greater importance and should be more robust than the existing power relating to suspects, and that position risks falling into confusion, as the right hon. Member for Delyn rightly warned, when we want clarity. That, I am afraid, would be the effect of the amendment; there would be more confusion than clarity. In any case, the Secretary of State has the power to do that.
	Let me address the issues raised by the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern). If a serving officer refuses to attend an IPCC interview, they should be subject to sanctions, which are serious and could result in dismissal. If the officer continues to refuse to attend, they can still be investigated by the IPCC and, where appropriate, charges can still be brought regardless of whether they attended an interview or refused to do so. Therefore, failure to attend the interview is not a way of avoiding the decisions of the IPCC. Such a failure would be a breach of prescribed standards of behaviour, and the officer would rightly become the subject of misconduct proceedings.
	The final, overarching point in reply to the hon. Lady’s questions is that the IPCC is an investigatory body. It has not asked for the power to impose sanctions, nor is it particularly well-equipped to exercise that power; it is there to investigate. Having said that, I recognise that we are all anxious to ensure that there is clarity on the availability of an effective sanction.

George Howarth: I do not have the information in front of me, but my impression is that the IPCC did ask for sanctions.

Damian Green: I have spoken to the IPPC, and it clearly stated that it did not want sanctions to be included in the Bill for various of the reasons that I have given. While I am certain that there is no need to amend the Bill, I am happy to give the Committee the assurance that I will continue to discuss the matter with the IPCC to see whether it needs any longer-term changes. In making any changes to regulations, we need to take a consistent approach in terms of sanctions on those who fail to attend as a witness or as a suspect.

Alison McGovern: So that we can absolutely clear, and as the Minister is, I am sure, in constant conversation with the IPCC, will he write to me, as chair of the all-party group on the Hillsborough disaster, to confirm that point?

Damian Green: I will be happy to write to the hon. Lady, as indeed I have written to the IPPC. I will send her a copy of that letter so that everyone knows that the position is absolutely clear and that we are all saying the same things in all forums.
	If my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester will agree to withdraw his amendment, I assure him and the Committee that we will continue to examine this question further to ensure that the effectiveness of the procedure is maintained as much as possible.

Stephen Mosley: I thank you, Ms Primarolo, and the previous Chairman for allowing the amendment to be debated. It is about an important issue and it was important that Members across the Committee had an opportunity to discuss it. I thank the Members who supported the amendment, which was, as I said, a probing amendment to allow the Minister to clarify the situation. I think that he has done that, and I look forward to reading his response to the chairman of the all-party group. Having heard his response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	The  Deputy Speaker resumed the  Chair .
	Bill reported, without amendment.
	Third  Reading

Damian Green: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	Members will be relieved to know that I do not intend to detain them for long, because they have heard what I need to say. More importantly, there is broad agreement about the Bill’s urgency and importance. I hope that I have answered the questions raised during this good and detailed discussion. There will, of course, be a further opportunity to consider any issues when the other place debates the Bill next Tuesday. We have considered some important matters today, such as those relating to retired officers and the sanctions available should a serving officer fail to comply, and I hope that Members of all parties who are concerned about those issues are now content.
	This short Bill raises important questions, because the underlying issues are extremely important. The Government are grateful for the support of the official Opposition and hon. and right hon. Members of all parties for the Bill, which will allow the Independent Police Complaints Commission to get on with its investigations and finally achieve justice for the 96 victims of the disaster, the many injured and all the families and friends affected by the tragedy.

David Hanson: I appreciate the Minister’s efforts to take account of a range of views with regard to this important Bill. I hope that, prior to the debate that will be held soon in another place, he will reflect on the comments made on Second Reading and in Committee and on those that might be made on Third Reading. Obviously, we will watch what happens in another place, but I wish the Bill a speedy passage, because ultimately it is one part of a number of measures to give justice to the 96 Hillsborough victims and their families. It is long overdue and I hope that the IPCC’s investigation will be as swift as possible and thorough. I look forward to the Bill giving it the ability to call officers to account for their actions on that dark day in April 1989.
	Question put and agreed  to .
	Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

PETITIONS

Families Against Suicide Today

Margaret Ritchie: I wish to present a petition of 2,079 signatures on behalf of the members of Families Against Suicide Today. I should like to note that Burren is near Warrenpoint in County Down in the constituency of South Down.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of Members of FAST (Families Against Suicide Today),
	Declares that FAST was brought together by Patti Boyle whose son Kevin left home at 12.30pm on 12 October 2011 after telling her he was going to work and that 101 days later his remains were found in a local area known as ‘Happy Valley’; further that Kevin had purchased an online suicide kit to complete his death from a website which described death as ‘Deliverance’; further that the Petitioners marched on 30 August 2012 from Kevin’s grave in Burren, Co. Down to Westminster to highlight Article 2 of the Human Rights Act 1998 the ‘Right to Life’.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to close down websites assisting suicide and to prosecute those who commit the crime of aiding and abetting suicide.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001142]

Film ‘Innocence of Muslims’

Stewart Jackson: This petition is from in excess of 4,000 Muslims in the City of Peterborough.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of Muslims of the City of Peterborough,
	Declares that the Petitioners feel hurt and shocked by the film ‘Innocence of Muslims’; further that the Petitioners believe that it represents a defamation of Islamic sacred values and is an insult to the Prophet Muhammad and that the Petitioners believe that this defamation of the Prophet Muhammad, or indeed any other Prophet, is unacceptable; further that the Petitioners do not accept the claim that insults to religious institutions, their prophets or their values fall within the scope of freedom of speech and that whilst the Petitioners support freedom of speech they wish to remind people that it carries with it the role of responsibility and care not to hurt and humiliate the feelings of other people; further that the Petitioners believe this kind of film, along with derogatory sketches and cartoons about the Prophet Muhammad is blasphemous and tortuous to Muslims all over the world; further that the Petitioners wish to dissociate themselves from the small minority of people who misbehaved during the protest marches throughout the world against this film and that the Petitioners believe that those actions were against the teachings of our beloved prophet.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to ban the film ‘Innocence of Muslims’ from being shown, consider new legislation to make it a criminal offence to create films or cartoons of a blasphemous nature and support moves to recognise the responsibility attached to freedom of speech and ensure such derogatory material is not encouraged.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001144]

Clevedon Community Hospital

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Nicky  Morgan .)

Liam Fox: I am pleased to have the opportunity in this short debate to raise some of the issues related to Clevedon community hospital.
	There has been a cottage hospital in Clevedon since 1874. The hospital has a fine tradition of providing care for more than 100,000 people living in Clevedon and the surrounding area. The current cottage hospital has 18 in-patient beds, along with limited X-ray, physiotherapy, musculoskeletal and minor injuries facilities. It also hosts a range of out-patient clinics. It is an invaluable service for the local community, especially for the many pensioners who live in my constituency, for whom travelling to Bristol or Weston-super-Mare could take more than an hour on the bus—when the buses come, that is.
	The original Victorian building has been tweaked over the years, but it is bursting at the seams and there is open concern among locals and NHS professionals that the building would not confidently pass a Care Quality Commission inspection. Those concerns are not new, so plans have been developed over the past four years for the building of a new community hospital in Clevedon.
	I pay tribute to the League of Friends of Clevedon cottage hospital for its unstinting efforts in support of the existing hospital over the past 50 years. Since 2005, it has spent £500,000 on building improvements and endoscopy, ultrasound and other facilities. For the past four years, it has supported the plans for a new hospital and has raised another £200,000 towards further improving health care provision in Clevedon. It is a shining example of the volunteer groups that make such a difference in our local communities, and we should applaud its extraordinary efforts.
	Over the past four years, four business cases have been submitted for the building of a new community hospital. The third business case was submitted in 2011 and was given to the consultancy firm PricewaterhouseCoopers for external scrutiny. It confirmed that the plans were affordable within the existing budget and made a number of suggestions to improve a subsequent business case. Those were incorporated in the fourth and final business plan.
	During the development of the plans, a preferred bidder for building the hospital was engaged under a private finance initiative arrangement. The plans developed by Amber Solutions for Care were also changed as a result of the consultancy process to bring the PFI annual rental charge down to £858,000 and, therefore, within the amount affordable to North Somerset primary care trust. So by March 2012, building plans had been tailored to be within affordability levels, and an independent consultancy firm had improved and endorsed the business case.
	In March, the business case was considered by the cluster board of the Bristol, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire primary care trusts and was recommended to the South of England strategic health authority for its endorsement at a meeting in May. North Somerset
	PCT issued a press release on 28 March, confirming that plans for the new community hospital were “on track”, and that
	“the business case was revised to take into account changes in the NHS locally and to ensure the long term viability of the Hospital. This work has now been completed and has been endorsed by the Cluster Board.”
	It ended by saying that
	“the projected opening of the new Community Hospital will be in early 2014.”
	After years of development, campaigning and fundraising, the many stakeholders and supporters in my constituency were delighted by the news.
	However, on 19 July, North Somerset PCT issued a new statement, saying that the business case had been reviewed and that the hospital was
	“unaffordable given the economic circumstances”.
	It is hard to see what new information came to light between March and July, so it is natural to conclude that either someone in North Somerset PCT got their numbers very wrong at the beginning, or that the U-turn was not actually based on affordability, but on priorities.
	I ask the Minister to confirm exactly what new information came to light between March and July. It is scandalous that perfectly reasonable questions from the community and its Member of Parliament were almost completely ignored, and left unanswered. We were all understandably disappointed at such a quick—and seemingly unexplained—reversal.
	Research has shown that the North Somerset PCT underspent in 2010-11 and 2011-12 by £1.6 million and £1.06 million respectively. Transfers of £1.8 million were also made from North Somerset PCT to South Gloucestershire PCT last year, and plans exist to make a similar transfer this year.
	North Somerset PCT, in its operational plan for 2011-12, notes that, for that year, it was the lowest funded PCT nationally. Being the lowest funded PCT in the country and still underspending seems mightily unfair to my constituents when they perceive that money is being transferred to other, better funded but less frugal PCTs, seemingly to the detriment of capital projects in North Somerset.
	The PCT has also expressed concern that financial shortfalls at the general hospital in Weston-super-Mare have forced a changing of priorities, which, again, is to the detriment of capital projects elsewhere in North Somerset. It appears that they are losing out, not on grounds of affordability but because priorities lie elsewhere. If others cannot function competently, that should be their problem, not ours.
	Then there is the wasted money. The process of developing the plans, securing planning permission and fees for external consultants, and administering the tendering process has cost around £1.5 million. The same again has been spent on procuring the Millcross site in Clevedon for building the new hospital. The preferred bidder may also be in the process of trying to recover some of the costs it incurred while redesigning the hospital at the PCT’s behest. More than £3 million of taxpayers’ money and more than four years of administrative effort may have been wasted on a hospital that never gets built.
	The people of Clevedon and North Somerset want a new hospital, and that is my main aim in the debate. Local reports are that endoscopy examinations have
	already been transferred out and the gynaecology unit is being transferred to Portishead, and rumour has it that the minor injuries unit is being transferred to the physiotherapy department, raising the question of the future location of the physiotherapists. I also understand that visits by consultants from Bristol are to be scaled back.
	I also want to secure the Minister’s assurance that there are no plans for reducing the services currently provided at Clevedon cottage hospital, and that the move of endoscopy and gynaecology services are only temporary measures.
	The handover from the North Somerset PCT to the North Somerset clinical commissioning group could be both an opportunity and a threat. I know the CCG has been involved in the decisions taken thus far, but it is important to know whether it has the same view on the need for a cottage or community hospital in Clevedon.
	Let me clear that my constituents are wedded not to any particular piece of ground but simply to the maintenance of community facilities. That is why we need reassurance from the Minister. We have watched plans for the proposed Portishead community hospital disappear, and we watched Orchard View, with its exceptional care facilities, disappear. We will not tolerate community facilities in Clevedon disappearing too. If the Millcross site cannot be built on and is subsequently sold, we must have assurances that the moneys raised from the sale will come back into our health authority, so that they can be reinvested in the Clevedon cottage hospital on its current site.
	It is clear that there has been a managerial shambles, so the management should pay the price, not the people of Clevedon and the surrounding area. Responsibility, accountability and transparency are all we seek. Surely that is not too much to ask. This has been a long, costly and frustrating process that has damaged my constituents’ trust in their local PCT. Millions of pounds have been wasted. It is still unclear what changed between March and July. The old cottage hospital is in an ageing building that has previously been deemed not fit for purpose.
	If the cottage hospital is to remain in service, it must be invested in so that its future is secure. At the very least, the proceeds from the disposal of Millcross must be reinvested in the current site. I seek an assurance that, if no new hospital is to be built, there will be no reduction in the services offered by Clevedon cottage hospital, and that endoscopy and gynaecology will be returned soon.
	We need to know whether there is really no way that a new hospital can be built. The plans are made; the affordability study has been completed; a contractor is secured; planning permission has been received; and public support is firmly in favour. The League of Friends Of Clevedon Hospital has been outstanding in its support for both the old hospital and the development of a new one. Whatever the outcome of this administrative tangle, I hope it will not be deterred from maintaining its fantastic efforts.
	We stand as one community to ensure that in the NHS we get fair treatment, a fair hearing and our fair share of the health care that is due to the people of Clevedon.

Daniel Poulter: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) both on securing the debate and on his strong advocacy for Clevedon community hospital.
	Members who represent more rural constituencies know the importance of high-quality community health care facilities, including community and cottage hospitals. They provide important close-to-home care for patients in more rural areas, particularly frail and elderly patients who have long distances to travel to receive health care.
	We know the importance of such hospitals in meeting the long-term challenges of the NHS. We need to redesign services and deliver more services closer to home, and prevent inappropriate hospital admissions to big acute hospitals such as those in Bristol or Weston-super-Mare. That means ensuring that we have the right community resources properly to support local people, including those with long-term medical conditions such as asthma, diabetes and dementia. In particular, we need to ensure that we have community-based support for older people—the biggest group with long-term conditions.
	We want to move the emphasis of care in this country away from acute crisis management, to which the NHS is accustomed, both to save the NHS money and to provide better care for people in their homes and communities. Community hospitals such as Clevedon are important in delivering such care. They provide invaluable beds for people with long-term conditions to give their carers respite, and important rehabilitation in a setting close to home, family and support networks for people who have broken hips, or who have had strokes or heart attacks. They provide the opportunity for step-up care for people who are not so unwell that they need to be admitted to an acute setting, but who can be better looked after temporarily in an environment that provides the additional care that people need. The Dr Foster report, which was published this week, highlights that 29% of patients did not necessarily need to be in acute hospital beds. If we are to meet the challenge of ensuring that people are better looked after and are not in hospital beds when they do not need to be, it is important that we invest properly in community resources, and Clevedon community hospital is just one of those resources.
	I share with my right hon. Friend and the community he represents their frustration with the primary care trust, as I have Hartismere community hospital in my constituency. My predecessor, Lord Framlingham, had considerable struggles with the PCT about the potential closure of an important rural hospital. From what my hon. Friend says, his constituents and local patients have been having considerable struggles and difficulties with the local PCT in Somerset.
	I acknowledge the special role the League of Friends plays in the life of Clevedon community hospital, a point my right hon. Friend made in his speech. It has worked to raise a lot of money for the hospital and to ensure that it is retained as an important community health care resource. It is dismayed and disappointed, as are others in the local community, by the attitude of the PCT. I understand his disappointment, but under the PCT arrangements the provision of local NHS
	services remains with the local NHS. However, he is concerned that approximately £1.5 million or £1.6 million has been spent on project costs and other costs over a four-to-five-year period, in proposing to develop a new and sustainable community hospital facility in Cleveland. The money has been spent, but there is still no new facility. As physicians, we would rather the money had been spent on a new facility or on community care.
	If it is any consolation to my right hon. Friend, I had a conversation with local health care representatives yesterday. They reassured me that even without the new facility at the allocated site, there are no concerns about any loss of services with the transfer from the PCT to the clinical commissioning group that will have responsibility for running community services. I hope it reassures my right hon. Friend to hear that when the new arrangements come into place in April next year services will remain as they are now.
	On endoscopy services, as clinicians we know that strict evidence-based clinical standards must be achieved when delivering endoscopy services, which, for patient safety and to maintain high-quality patient care, have to be adhered to. There were concerns that facilities at Clevedon hospital were not able to maintain those high standards. For example, arrangements for the decontamination of endoscopy equipment would have to be substantially improved if the service was to achieve external accreditation by the national joint advisory group for endoscopy, and that would need to be achieved for the service to return to the hospital.
	Despite my conversation yesterday with representatives from local health care commissioners, I am alarmed by what my right hon. Friend tells me about the business case to all intents and purposes being approved and then suddenly, between March and June, being disapproved—an extraordinary turn of events. It is inexcusable to raise the expectations of local patient groups, effectively giving a green light suggesting things were going ahead, and then to remove that expectation. I am happy to look into the matter further and to write to my right hon. Friend about it in more detail, because I am concerned about the issues he has raised. When something like £1.5 million has been spent on planning, and various plans and business cases have been brought forward, it is all the more concerning. It is not a satisfactory state of affairs, as far as the local management of NHS resources is concerned, and it is certainly not a satisfactory state of affairs, as far as local patients are concerned. I shall further investigate the matter and write to him on the basis of those investigations.
	On future provision, I would like to reassure my right hon. Friend that, according to what local health care commissioners told me yesterday, the services currently provided at the hospital are safe and will still be provided. Even though plans do not appear to be in place, as they once were, to build a new hospital on a new site, it would be relatively easy, I understand, to maintain the buildings and the facilities on the current site in a state that would allow for the safe delivery of high-quality patient care and the ongoing provision of services for patients in the area. I understand that the older building can be improved, if required, to ensure that it can still deliver high-quality patient care.
	With those reassurances, I will further investigate why the business case has gone from being approved to disapproved, as my right hon. Friend said. We have been reassured that the services currently provided at the hospital will continue to be provided for the foreseeable future.

Liam Fox: If we are to maintain clinical services on the original site, substantial investment will be required. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be sympathetic to our view. If a business case can be perfectly fine in March but dumped in July, if we, the poorest-funded PCT, can give money to other less well-performing PCTs and given that the transfer is being put forward again this year, how can we have much confidence in the local management? Then, when our questions are not answered, as they continue not to be, we feel that there is not only insufficient competence but a lack of transparency. I am grateful for his reassurance that the matter will be looked into, but I would also like him to kick our local PCT in the proverbials to ensure we get the money required from the sale of the Millcross site or from additional investment, so that we can get the facilities that our taxpayers contribute towards but which seem to be getting siphoned off into other areas, whether because of a lack of adequate priorities or competence.

Daniel Poulter: My right hon. Friend makes a good case. From what he has outlined, I fully agree that some of the circumstances surrounding the decision seem extraordinary and completely unacceptable. He described it as being far from competent, and I would not wish to disagree, judging from his analysis.
	We are interested in delivering high-quality front-line patient care. The challenge for the NHS is delivering that care close to home and close to people’s communities. That is what Clevedon does and what it needs to continue to do. We need to ensure that PCTs, as they are at the moment, and clinical commissioning groups, as they will be in the future, invest in high-quality local health care services in order to meet the challenge of better looking after older people. That is the clear challenge that David Nicholson set for the NHS in 2009 in the quality, innovation, productivity and prevention challenge. It is about the need to redesign services in order to deliver better and more affordable care in the community.
	That was also the challenge that Dr Foster outlined for the NHS earlier this week. It is about time that my right hon. Friend’s local health care commissioners acknowledged that challenge, invested in local health care services and made the argument for keeping investment locally, rather than, as he said, siphoning it off elsewhere. I will clarify the matter further by investigating with the PCT what has happened. From our discussions so far, I can reassure my right hon. Friend that the PCT and the clinical commissioning groups reassured me yesterday that they would, they thought, be able to find the investment to continue with the current older buildings, maintaining them as fit for purpose to continue with patient care, and that patient care will continue on the current site, as it does now, in April. Nevertheless, there are clearly questions for the local health care commissioners to answer.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.

Deferred Divisions

Legal Aid and Advice

That the draft Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Amendment of Schedule 1) Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 29 October, be approved.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 288, Noes 213.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Legal aid and advice

That the draft Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) Regulations 2012, which were laid before this House on 29 October, be approved.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 287, Noes 213.

Question accordingly agreed to.